dew

Woman dead after power boat collides with sailboat in Narragansett Bay

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

you can’t assume that the powerboat driver has any decision in the course of litigation.

Bullsh*t.  He can man up.  Take some responsibility.  Nobody can force him to lie.  #NoIntegrity

And IF this legal strategy has any legs or success in this instance its a sad day and a much much scarier time for everyone on the water.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just called the lawyer to ask her why the complaint seems to lie. she had no comment and hung up on me.

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks to me like some possibly mendaciousness in the filing.  Left a message with attorney general's PR girl

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

he was supposed to be arraigned Nov 13, anyone see any docs?

Am I correct to suppose he must have won in order to file this:

image.png.6de384823051a4f51a368dc392da4de6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Bullsh*t.  He can man up.  Take some responsibility.  Nobody can force him to lie.  #NoIntegrity

And IF this legal strategy has any legs or success in this instance its a sad day and a much much scarier time for everyone on the water.

 

 Not if his insurance company is going to pay a penny in compensation to keep him from losing everything in a civil litigation. Sorry, but hearts are soft and insurance claims are hard. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer on the case is the same one who represented Moneypenny Holdings LLC when they lost a judgment to Nevor over the Vesper torn bicep case.  her family owns scallop boats and she is an expert in maritime insurance defense work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, weightless said:

Am I correct to suppose he must have won in order to file this:

image.png.6de384823051a4f51a368dc392da4de6.png

Don't suppose anything.  We don't know what happened yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

 Not if his insurance company is going to pay a penny in compensation to keep him from losing everything in a civil litigation. Sorry, but hearts are soft and insurance claims are hard. 
 

 

Can’t believe you sit here defending some ass who drives a powerboat into a sailboat in broad daylight and kills somebody. There is no excuse. Low life scum. Hope they rot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Limitaiton Act is typically used by a shipowner (and underwriters) to claim lack of "privity" or knowledge of any failing or neglect of its well-trained crew, sent out on a reasonable voyage with a seaworthy vessel, and thereby limit owner's liability to the value of that vessel. 

Hence it does not tend to work real well in practice in recreational vessel accidents when the owner, and the on-scene skipper/operator, are the same person (see para 14 of the complaint ).  Assuming Teixeria was operating or supervising the operation of the AT LAST, the complaint essentially claims that Teixeira as owner, was unaware of what Teixeira as operator, was doing.  

 

 

(Usual disclaimer here, okay??   I'm not your lawyer, this isn't attorney-client advice, go get your own attorney.   Thanks)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Bullsh*t.  He can man up.  Take some responsibility.  Nobody can force him to lie.  #NoIntegrity

And IF this legal strategy has any legs or success in this instance its a sad day and a much much scarier time for everyone on the water.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Wess said:

Can’t believe you sit here defending some ass who drives a powerboat into a sailboat in broad daylight and kills somebody. There is no excuse. Low life scum. Hope they rot.

I’m not. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. It has nothing to do with Frank T. or anyone else. I personally hope he pays a shitload of cash from his insurance company and I wish he could do some hard time for what he’s “allegedly” responsible for.

I say allegedly because we here in the US consider even the most obvious criminal innocent until proven in court and the offense is alleged until proven. It’s sad and don’t misunderstand me as being complicit with any legal bullshit which keeps this guy from coming right out and offering a major apology(even if he could care less in real life) so that the family and their friends could feel a little sympathy from the offender’s end instead of the deafening silence of the legal system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Wess, why don’t you just drive on up and beat his fucking ass to a pulp if you’re so upset about it? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep talking about visibility, speed, etc. of the PB, but nobody seems to be using the great and powerful oracle of knowledge, Google.

The vessel is a 28' True World Marine I/O, probably something a lot like this: http://www.boatersresources.com/bfs_detail.php?adid=414214

It's listed as a 20 degree hull, so pretty flat and shouldn't ride bow high.  ~300 hp Yanmar with a Volvo DP should have plenty of bite to keep it up on the pad while running.

I've read cruise speeds of 30 kts, so figure if he was running behind/meeting people/"missed his turn", he was probably close to that or faster.

Here's an ad for one with a good shot of the visibility out the windshield (looks nice and open to me... especially when considering the size of the F18 rig): http://www.boatersresources.com/boat-for-sale/2005-True-World-Marine-TE288Yanmar-Diesel-Used-400062

 

This was posted on a catamaran sailing site regarding the most recent court date: https://turnto10.com/news/local/portsmouth-man-involved-in-newport-boat-crash-faces-judge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wlrottge said:

People keep talking about visibility, speed, etc. of the PB, but nobody seems to be using the great and powerful oracle of knowledge, Google.

The vessel is a 28' True World Marine I/O, probably something a lot like this: http://www.boatersresources.com/bfs_detail.php?adid=414214

It's listed as a 20 degree hull, so pretty flat and shouldn't ride bow high.  ~300 hp Yanmar with a Volvo DP should have plenty of bite to keep it up on the pad while running.

I've read cruise speeds of 30 kts, so figure if he was running behind/meeting people/"missed his turn", he was probably close to that or faster.

Here's an ad for one with a good shot of the visibility out the windshield (looks nice and open to me... especially when considering the size of the F18 rig): http://www.boatersresources.com/boat-for-sale/2005-True-World-Marine-TE288Yanmar-Diesel-Used-400062

This was posted on a catamaran sailing site regarding the most recent court date: https://turnto10.com/news/local/portsmouth-man-involved-in-newport-boat-crash-faces-judge

 

Or you can see the actual boat in post #201

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, if the traffic court cited the defendant for breaching statutes or regulations that could have been causal to the accident, the defendant appealed and the appeal was pending, would it be a legal problem to attest in a different court that the defendant did not breach any statutes or regulations that might have caused or contrubted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 420 is yet another speculation about of  unknown facts. 
 

sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the idiots who keep wanting to defend this nut. Hits a sailboat with his powerboat in broad daylight and settled conditions. And in so doing he kills a person. And the filing referenced earlier is not saying he didn’t do it; it’s saying if he is liable his liability should be limited to the value of his boat.  How nice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wess said:

Love the idiots who keep wanting to defend this nut. Hits a sailboat with his powerboat in broad daylight and settled conditions. And in so doing he kills a person. And the filing referenced earlier is not saying he didn’t do it; it’s saying if he is liable his liability should be limited to the value of his boat.  How nice. 

Plesae do notte create wondere aronde them, thisse perpechiuattes theire powere.  Nuttes our nuttes.  Keepe it sippelle, awarde no pointtes tille theire is somthinge to rewarde.             :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive spent the summer sailing in Bristol harbour, mount hope bay and in the chunk of water between prudence island and Portsmouth. ive had to pay attention here far more than anywhere else i have ever sailed.ive had probably 8 times where i have had to take action to avoid a bad situation. this included one power boater cutting my bow with in 15 feet, at speed, and while i was stopped after having dumped sails, another cut in front of me.  the power boat operators here have no fucking idea about the rules of the road...... and then they dock their boats and drive cars. just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, basketcase said:

 the power boat operators here have no fucking idea about the rules of the road...... and then they dock their boats and drive cars. just sayin.

I licke breffitey, as it ist my middelle name.                                      :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

Love the idiots who keep wanting to defend this nut. Hits a sailboat with his powerboat in broad daylight and settled conditions. And in so doing he kills a person. And the filing referenced earlier is not saying he didn’t do it; it’s saying if he is liable his liability should be limited to the value of his boat.  How nice. 

Who’s defending him besides his attorneys? 
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

Love the idiots who keep wanting to defend this nut. Hits a sailboat with his powerboat in broad daylight and settled conditions. And in so doing he kills a person. And the filing referenced earlier is not saying he didn’t do it; it’s saying if he is liable his liability should be limited to the value of his boat.  How nice. 

Nice theory - so if you drive drunk in a $500 shitbox and cripple someone you're only liable for $500?

Only a lawyer could think up something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Nice theory - so if you drive drunk in a $500 shitbox and cripple someone you're only liable for $500?

Only a lawyer could think up something like that.

A lawyer in the 19th century no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That lawyer should be disciplined by the judge for wasting the courts time.

Penalizing the assholes who come up with that sort of disgusting shit would bring it to an end pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That lawyer should be disciplined by the judge for wasting the courts time.

Penalizing the assholes who come up with that sort of disgusting shit would bring it to an end pretty quickly.

Problem is that it is a fairly standard line of action going back to the 19th centry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Nice theory - so if you drive drunk in a $500 shitbox and cripple someone you're only liable for $500?

Only a lawyer could think up something like that.

It’s not the first time the tactic has been referenced on this forum. I remember that almost all posters appeared quite unconcerned when Courageous Sailing Centre played exactly the same card to try to limit its liability (for negligently damaging Ngoni’s expensive paint job) to the estimated $1,000 value of their beater 420.

IMO, the loophole is obscure, archaic, and unjustifiably deprives innocent victims of fair compensation. It should be abolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Svanen said:

It’s not the first time the tactic has been referenced on this forum. I remember that almost all posters appeared quite unconcerned when Courageous Sailing Centre played exactly the same card to try to limit its liability (for negligently damaging Ngoni’s expensive paint job) to the estimated $1,000 value of their beater 420.

IMO, the loophole is obscure, archaic, and unjustifiably deprives innocent victims of fair compensation. It should be abolished.

That case was a very different matter!

Don't want to sidetrack this serious thread, but just like to say that I bumped the Courageous thread to see if anyone knows how that case went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

Problem is that it is a fairly standard line of action going back to the 19th centry.

So what?

It was imbecilic then and it's imbecilic now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, weightless said:

Hypothetically, if the traffic court cited the defendant for breaching statutes or regulations that could have been causal to the accident, the defendant appealed and the appeal was pending, would it be a legal problem to attest in a different court that the defendant did not breach any statutes or regulations that might have caused or contrubted?

Yes, it seems the suit hangs on culpability, Texeira prays the Admiralty Court to absolve him of culpability in the collision as this will limit his liability. When a mishap is an An Act of God or an inadvertance then this law is somewhat just, hence the attestation that his boat was of staunch condition. His petition also mentions that 3rd parties may have caused this, presumably this is standard but there so far hasn't been any mention of 3rd parties.

Whether or not Aarsheim is an asshat this suit aims to settle the question of his negligent operation given the Tartaglino estate filing a claim. I guess that it will be up to the judge (s) to make such a determination given the facts presented. The DEM not finding him criminally reckless or at least not attempting to charge him thusly would contribute to his exoneration. His guilty plea to failure to keep a proper lookout might argue against it. Will he withdraw that plea or has he never made it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Nice theory - so if you drive drunk in a $500 shitbox and cripple someone you're only liable for $500?

Only a lawyer could think up something like that.

First of all, nobody has thought that up because no such laws exist. If you are drunk and you kill someone operating a boat, a car or any kind of machinery you are going to be liable for a lot more than $500.

Secondly, the laws that do exist were thought up by the legislators not the lawyers that implement them. 

Thirdly I thank god that I live in America where our founding fathers had the good sense to provide that every citizen is entitled to due process under the law and we established an adversarial legal system accountable to the public that establishes the facts and we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. 

If I could be allowed to misquote Winston Churchill .....The American legal system is terrible until you consider the alternative.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IPLore said:

Secondly, the laws that do exist were thought up by the legislators not the lawyers that implement them.

yeah but, a shit ton of legislators are lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

So what?

It was imbecilic then and it's imbecilic now.

Exactly.  This limitation of liability strategy is relevant and appropriate if you happen to be anchored out side the channel and get run over by the Carnival Pride cruise ship.  I can not imagine this was ever intended to be available to be used by a John Q Public small boat owner/operator in a situation like this.  This limits liability when you did it.  The CA dive boat operator for example.  Clearly they "did it."  No standing night/anchor watch, a fire and deaths resulted.  This gets filed to limit liability... how much the guilty have to pay.  IF this can be applied by John Q Public small boat owner and operator there is something seriously wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

is this the same Texeira  family as the baseball player?

Has to be !  There can't possibly be two Portugese derivative named Texeira families in the northeast! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had (have) a thread about the Limitation Act where the David/Goliath analogy was somewhat the opposite, and a community sailing center filing to limit liability the value of the one 420 sailboat that scratched the topsides of a very expensive sailing yacht:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dive boat operator in Catalina filed the same motion. It is always filed in marine liability cases, this is nothing new and to be expected. As mentioned earlier in the thread, it looks like it is not applicable in this case and will probably get denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but you know what else that dive boat owner did? He spoke out publicly, expressing great remorse for the accident and the loss of life, and cited the insurance underwriters as the reason for the filing of the liability scheme(scam?). He recognized that the optics were horrendous and insensitive (at very best), and said 'look guys, I'm so sorry this happened, and I'm not trying to be an ass, but the decision is not up to me'. I'm not defending that guy or Mr Tex, just saying, it would be nice to hear from Mt Tex. Maybe at least an open letter or statement to Sandra's family..? It doesn't not absolve him nor does it admit guilt. Just a simple "damn I'm sorry she died" might go a long way here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IPLore said:

Secondly, the laws that do exist were thought up by the legislators not the lawyers that implement them.

Nice theory - except for the fact that lawyers are the single biggest demographic that politicians are drawn from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 4:47 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

looks to me like some possibly mendaciousness in the filing.  Left a message with attorney general's PR girl

Good onya Clean for trying to make the process work properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wess said:

Exactly.  This limitation of liability strategy is relevant and appropriate if you happen to be anchored out side the channel and get run over by the Carnival Pride cruise ship.  I can not imagine this was ever intended to be available to be used by a John Q Public small boat owner/operator in a situation like this.  This limits liability when you did it.  The CA dive boat operator for example.  Clearly they "did it."  No standing night/anchor watch, a fire and deaths resulted.  This gets filed to limit liability... how much the guilty have to pay.  IF this can be applied by John Q Public small boat owner and operator there is something seriously wrong.

So you're angry with the precedent and the attempt to apply it in this situation.  That's fair and good - calling out others who are simply pointing out that this IS the law and precedent as willingly defending it is a dick move. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So you're angry with the precedent and the attempt to apply it in this situation.  That's fair and good - calling out others who are simply pointing out that this IS the law and precedent as willingly defending it is a dick move. 

Is it a dick move or a reading comprehension failure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:
49 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So you're angry with the precedent and the attempt to apply it in this situation.  That's fair and good - calling out others who are simply pointing out that this IS the law and precedent as willingly defending it is a dick move. 

Is it a dick move or a reading comprehension failure?

Prior to the sentiment being repeated after having the situation explained?   I'd be happy to apologize and say that ya might have a point. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Prior to the sentiment being repeated after having the situation explained?   I'd be happy to apologize and say that ya might have a point. 

 

As someone else said above, I don't see anyone defending Teixeira's filing, as Wess decries.  He gets it wrong like that sometimes because education system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limitation puts the vessel owner into federal court.  And it stays all other suits when there are multiple claimants, it's a "concursus".  So it's all in one forum, at least insofar as the limitation issue is concerned.  The aggrieved party files its "claim" in the limitation proceeding.   Once limitation is decided yea or nay (by the judge), typically the claimants are then free to pursue their state court claims, if they have made them.  If none, then the same federal judge will make the finding on liability, typically based on the same evidence already heard in the limitation proceeding.    

In a case with a single claimant, the concursus may not be as practically relevant.  Though the choice of forum may be, since a state court action may be tried by jury.

 

(the usual disclaimer here, not meant to be legal advice, no attorney-client relationship, get your own attorney.     We have to say that.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean - for a lawyer you sure write like shit. Consider the edit function. And get better bait. Or a thicker skin. You are too easy to wind up.  And Mr. T and his counsel still deserve to rot. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the links first cut, it looks like he was up on 3 not 4 traffic charges and was fined 100 per. Does this means he's been found guilty or so pleaded? If so, does this mean no go on limitation? They filed in state, already I think so goes back maybe, guy could stretch it out, when was the last time Gontarz appeared in traffic court?

 

By the way, someone might mention to the Editor that his quoted summary is erroneous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruno said:

By the way, someone might mention to the Editor that his quoted summary is erroneous.

Thet "someone" needes moire starche in herre dresse then I halve....               :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bruno said:

I missed the links first cut, it looks like he was up on 3 not 4 traffic charges and was fined 100 per. Does this means he's been found guilty or so pleaded?

Doesn't show that he's paid and the status shows "open". Perhaps appealed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was continued until Jan 15.  Teixeira's counsel (not scallop girl) asked for discovery of all the government's evidence, specifically mentioning the unredacted report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

Thet "someone" needes moire starche in herre dresse then I halve....               :)

You can't handle the truth? Or he can't integrate the truth? We report, you decide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit to having dropped the ball after sending scot the link.  I told him i might have time to write a piece, turned out I didn't.  Don't have time today either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, weightless said:

Doesn't show that he's paid and the status shows "open". Perhaps appealed?

Status shows open, it was continued but fines assessed? Final report said 4 charges but only 3 appear in docket, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruno said:

Status shows open, it was continued but fines assessed? Final report said 4 charges but only 3 appear in docket, why?

i think the fines are just the amount associated with the citations.  there has been no plea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I lived in RI I would've enquired of my elected reps (from the top down) what gives? Is it open season on Narragansett Bay? I'm so old that I can remember when justice used to make an example of malefactors (real or otherwise) pour encourager les autres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

i think the fines are just the amount associated with the citations.  there has been no plea

Which is an interesting system, assessing fines in advance because it says balance due, and only 3 counts, why was 4th dropped would be my question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to y'all for staying on this. 

We had an incident here a few years back in which a big-ass power boat ran down and destroyed a Thistle with full sails up on a clear day. 

The well-connected perp got clean away even though law enforcement craft were at the scene. 

Once again, there is your "rule of law" 

Grrrrrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Thanks to y'all for staying on this. 

We had an incident here a few years back in which a big-ass power boat ran down and destroyed a Thistle with full sails up on a clear day. 

The well-connected perp got clean away even though law enforcement craft were at the scene. 

Once again, there is your "rule of law" 

Grrrrrr

That's outrageous. But nobody injured? And in the very waters that Sandy made his initial mark, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fastyacht - here are photos of the incident. It did not even make the local newspaper, no citations, . .

Amazingly, no one was hurt (two crew were on the Thistle) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you use the "stand your ground" defense and blow this sumbitch away with something like a Desert Eagle 50 as he is bearing down on you? Just wishin'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Involved in Newport Boating Death Seeks Exoneration From Liability in U.S. District Court: https://www.golocalprov.com/news/man-involved-in-newport-boating-death-seeks-exoneration-from-liability-in-u

Darn good thing I'm not this guy's neighbor. Bad things might happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean, I hope as this evolves, you do end up writing this up. As a sad spectator and non-lawyer, it will make interesting reading. I hope that the end result is that her family ends up with his entire net worth as well as a good chunk of the insurance company's, and he is doing 3-5 for manslaughter.  Too much to hope for, probably, considering how some of the other cases have gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, On The Hard said:

Clean, I hope as this evolves, you do end up writing this up. As a sad spectator and non-lawyer, it will make interesting reading. I hope that the end result is that her family ends up with his entire net worth as well as a good chunk of the insurance company's, and he is doing 3-5 for manslaughter.  Too much to hope for, probably, considering how some of the other cases have gone.

I don't think he could be charged based on what they have, unless civil discovery reveals a smoking gun. Given the apparent lack of alcohol could only be a video from onboard showing him being reckless.  I sure hope the estate of the deceased has a good attorney though, or this guy's lawyers will run over them.  If they do work for Jim Schwarz's insurer they must have some hard hitters over there.  The DEM report was disappointing and borderline incompetent IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I don't think he could be charged based on what they have, unless civil discovery reveals a smoking gun. Given the apparent lack of alcohol could only be a video from onboard showing him being reckless.  I sure hope the estate of the deceased has a good attorney though, or this guy's lawyers will run over them.  If they do work for Jim Schwarz's insurer they must have some hard hitters over there.

I see your point, although hitting a sailboat seems about like driving through a school zone at 45 and running over a kid. Do that and they WILL find a way to criminally prosecute. This just doesn't seem much different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, On The Hard said:

I see your point, although hitting a sailboat seems about like driving through a school zone at 45 and running over a kid. Do that and they WILL find a way to criminally prosecute. This just doesn't seem much different.

Unfortunately it is more like running over a bicycle team. The police, the courts, pretty much everyone hates cyclists. It's open season. discouraging because it has not gotten better in 40 years. SOme places it is worse than before.

I see the powerboat/sailboat thing the same way. Most people know nothing of sailboats and consider them a "nuisance" when on the water--same as bicycles.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if the powerboat has an MMSI# and AIS transceiver?  Has an AIS track ever been used in court in a case like this to show no attempt at evasive maneuvers as if running on AP...

If US Sailing actually wants to convince me they are worth anything they should be all over this filing briefs and writing letters and lobbying legislators. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The DEM report was disappointing and borderline incompetent IMO

+1

My intuition is that a strong defense might have had some influence in that outcome, too.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, On The Hard said:

I see your point, although hitting a sailboat seems about like driving through a school zone at 45 and running over a kid. Do that and they WILL find a way to criminally prosecute. This just doesn't seem much different.

Except they already decided that he hadn't been traveling at excessive speed for the conditions.  More like driving through the school zone at the speed limit while turned around playing a game with your passengers.  That's what they would be looking for - proof that he wasn't at the helm, or that the helmsperson wasn't looking ahead of them at all.  Not a rare thing on powerboats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ryecatsailor said:

That is a good point about US Sailing.   Sent them a lot of checks over the years....

Send them emails and find out.  Maybe Ron White or Chuck Hawley who both spent a lot of time working on safety issues and accident reports?, though I'm not sure if either is still part of the org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
15 hours ago, On The Hard said:

I see your point, although hitting a sailboat seems about like driving through a school zone at 45 and running over a kid. Do that and they WILL find a way to criminally prosecute. This just doesn't seem much different.

Except they already decided that he hadn't been traveling at excessive speed for the conditions.  More like driving through the school zone at the speed limit while turned around playing a game with your passengers.  That's what they would be looking for - proof that he wasn't at the helm, or that the helmsperson wasn't looking ahead of them at all.  Not a rare thing on powerboats.

Well, the fact that the sailboat is VERY easy to see ought to indicate that either 1- the operator was not paying attention or 2- he deliberately hit the sailboat. Those two cover the entire range, there's not a realistic third possibility.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the fact that the sailboat is VERY easy to see ought to indicate that either 1- the operator was not paying attention or 2- he deliberately hit the sailboat. Those two cover the entire range, there's not a realistic third possibility.

- DSK

The realistic third possivility is the bias against sailboats in the population (and therefore the courts too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fastyacht said:
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the fact that the sailboat is VERY easy to see ought to indicate that either 1- the operator was not paying attention or 2- he deliberately hit the sailboat. Those two cover the entire range, there's not a realistic third possibility.

 

The realistic third possivility is the bias against sailboats in the population (and therefore the courts too).

Agreed on that, I meant the actions of the motorboat operator

It seems incredible to me that any person can kill another with a motor vehicle... in this case a boat, sure.... and our court system says "Yeah whatever, get out of my office."

I've experienced this once before, one of my closest sailing friends and long time crew was killed while sailing by a motorboater who did not even get a scolding or the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

So now we all know how to get away with murder. Lure your intended victim onto a sailboat (or a bicycle)

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Except they already decided that he hadn't been traveling at excessive speed for the conditions.  More like driving through the school zone at the speed limit while turned around playing a game with your passengers.  That's what they would be looking for - proof that he wasn't at the helm, or that the helmsperson wasn't looking ahead of them at all.  Not a rare thing on powerboats.

I see this applied daily, rather than impose an arbitrary speed limit on vessels there seems to be a desire to allow them to adjust their speed to best suit the conditions according to the skipper's judgement. This is a laudable principle (who wants to be ticketed for speeding to avoid a cleanup set in a pass?) but leads to a corollary. If it's all up to the skipper's judgement then maybe he or she should be tested and licensed to operate? With sanctions for inattention.

The prejudice amongst the ignorant is that sailboats change their headings erratically and unpredictably, as opposed to powercraft. This justifies hitting them at will because who can predict the unpredictable? As inaccurate as this may be (and we've all sailed with the helm who tacks too frequently) in this case it is an unsatisfactory explanation as the sailboat was on a fetch leg of a race and holding a steady course and speed. The primary reason I distributed the diagram was to assert this point.

Failing to see and avoid a 30'x19'x10' obstacle in your path is not inadvertance. And in this case I believe it must have been the powerboat that made an abrupt course change leading to the collision and death. That the LEOs and prosecutors are afraid to make this argument publicly is not satisfactory.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bruno said:

I see this applied daily, rather than impose an arbitrary speed limit on vessels there seems to be a desire to allow them to adjust their speed to best suit the conditions according to the skipper's judgement. This is a laudable principle (who wants to be ticketed for speeding to avoid a cleanup set in a pass?) but leads to a corollary. If it's all up to the skipper's judgement then maybe he or she should be tested and licensed to operate? With sanctions for inattention.

The prejudice amongst the ignorant is that sailboats change their headings erratically and unpredictably, as opposed to powercraft. This justifies hitting them at will because who can predict the unpredictable? As inaccurate as this may be (and we've all sailed with the helm who tacks too frequently) in this case it is an unsatisfactory explanation as the sailboat was on a fetch leg of a race and holding a steady course and speed. The primary reason I distributed the diagram was to assert this point.

Failing to see and avoid a 30'x19'x10' obstacle in your path is not inadvertance. And in this case I believe it must have been the powerboat that made an abrupt course change leading to the collision and death. That the LEOs and prosecutors are afraid to make this argument publicly is not satisfactory.

I agree with you.

I think we should only be starting our pressure on the RI gfovernment.

More pressure needed.

I like hte ida of US Sailing involvement. Tip: the new president is a Rhode Island native and grew up sailing in Jamestown!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story is starting to resemble that cop on the lake in Cali.

Maybe this guy can run for Mayor or the Senate later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

This story is starting to resemble that cop on the lake in Cali.

Maybe this guy can run for Mayor or the Senate later.

Hell, just make him President and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

This story is starting to resemble that cop on the lake in Cali.

Maybe this guy can run for Mayor or the Senate later.

That would be Russell Perdock, a command staffer with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. Don't forget to use his name as it keeps his evil more accessible in Google searches.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump - Needs to stay on the front page. Justice needs to be done

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whille I adgree with you, theires thoise that dointe.  Apparentley the ritte dogges halve theire bones and our happey with that.  Justisse needes tobe persued by alle. IMHO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites