Dear All, I need help. My Father in law just lost a law suit when a power boat ran through our previous McGreggor @ 40 knots at dusk. No deaths. McGreggor did not sink. Judge ruled that the McGreggors lights were not good enough even though they meet North American Standards and were factory issued. This has now set a president for any accident. We want to appeal this and need some help. I am trying to find the McGreggor website to contact them directly as this will dramatically impact sales. Please help. rexbaldwin@shaw.ca Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Rex Baldwin
- Status
Sorry...
to hear about that. It sounds like the judge had his head up his... Anyway, where was the boat located? Some areas have speed restrictions from dusk till dawn. Try this link as it says that it is the factory site for Mac26's. If nothign else, they may be aboe to point you in the right direction. Chris M25 Chara
to hear about that. It sounds like the judge had his head up his... Anyway, where was the boat located? Some areas have speed restrictions from dusk till dawn. Try this link as it says that it is the factory site for Mac26's. If nothign else, they may be aboe to point you in the right direction. Chris M25 Chara
Will check it out
I'll check it out. I'm just scanning a couple of photo's. The McGreggor was cut in half and did not sink. Great ad for McGreggors. Thanks. Rex.
I'll check it out. I'm just scanning a couple of photo's. The McGreggor was cut in half and did not sink. Great ad for McGreggors. Thanks. Rex.
MacGregor upgraded awhile ago
First, it's spelled "MacGregor," which will probably help your search. I don't know about the earlier MacGregor models, but the 26X and 26M powersailors don't come with an anchor light, so if this happened at anchor, your FIL's anchor light was probably an aftermarket. Again, I don't know about classic MacGregors, but earlier 26Xs were supplied with 5 watt Aqua Signal series 20 navigational lights. At some point in 26X production, perhaps around 1998-1999, MacGregor began using brighter 10 watt Hella Marine series 3562 lights on the 26X and now the 26M. I find your situation interesting, considering the Davis Instruments hype that their Megalight meets the 2 nautical mile visibility with a 0.110 amp (roughly 1.4 watt) bulb. It appears even their 0.320 amp (roughly 4 watt) bulb might be called into question. When we added an anchor light to our X, we used a 10 watt Hella Marine 2492, and it is very bright. This also might be something to consider for those tempted to replace the bulbs in 225° and 135° navigation lights with narrow beam LED replacement bulbs unsuited for this application.
First, it's spelled "MacGregor," which will probably help your search. I don't know about the earlier MacGregor models, but the 26X and 26M powersailors don't come with an anchor light, so if this happened at anchor, your FIL's anchor light was probably an aftermarket. Again, I don't know about classic MacGregors, but earlier 26Xs were supplied with 5 watt Aqua Signal series 20 navigational lights. At some point in 26X production, perhaps around 1998-1999, MacGregor began using brighter 10 watt Hella Marine series 3562 lights on the 26X and now the 26M. I find your situation interesting, considering the Davis Instruments hype that their Megalight meets the 2 nautical mile visibility with a 0.110 amp (roughly 1.4 watt) bulb. It appears even their 0.320 amp (roughly 4 watt) bulb might be called into question. When we added an anchor light to our X, we used a 10 watt Hella Marine 2492, and it is very bright. This also might be something to consider for those tempted to replace the bulbs in 225° and 135° navigation lights with narrow beam LED replacement bulbs unsuited for this application.
lighting requirements
Did your F-I-L have a maritime lawyer? (I wondered if the judge is either boat ignorant, a power-snob, and/or an anti-MacGregor snob. Or maybe there are other mitigating circumstances?) If the lights were operating as per USCG Nav Rules (position, color, visibility), the other guy's at fault. If they're factory installed, but don't meet the Nav Rules, MacGregor's at fault (unless they were obstructed, or weren't getting enough voltage to meet the visibility requirements, or the colored lenses have faded [happened on my boat]). You mention North American Standards. The USCG Nav Rules are the minimum requirements for boating in the US. Local jurisdictions (states) may have more stringent requirements, but I've never heard of addditional lighting requirements. I'd think MacGregor would very much like to correct the record on this. It'd be bad for business if it were officially decided that their boats weren't meeting minimum requirements. Think major legal liability.
Did your F-I-L have a maritime lawyer? (I wondered if the judge is either boat ignorant, a power-snob, and/or an anti-MacGregor snob. Or maybe there are other mitigating circumstances?) If the lights were operating as per USCG Nav Rules (position, color, visibility), the other guy's at fault. If they're factory installed, but don't meet the Nav Rules, MacGregor's at fault (unless they were obstructed, or weren't getting enough voltage to meet the visibility requirements, or the colored lenses have faded [happened on my boat]). You mention North American Standards. The USCG Nav Rules are the minimum requirements for boating in the US. Local jurisdictions (states) may have more stringent requirements, but I've never heard of addditional lighting requirements. I'd think MacGregor would very much like to correct the record on this. It'd be bad for business if it were officially decided that their boats weren't meeting minimum requirements. Think major legal liability.
Legal Problems
The judge did not know anything about boating. She sat there and typed everything into a laptop and had to ask for spelling and clarification on Hull, Keel, etc etc .... the lawyer my father-in-law hired also did not know anything about boating - another faut pas. It should have been a slam dunk so I did not get involved. After the ruling and judgement I am flabagasted and we have until August 29th to appeal. Not only did they lose, they have to pay US$40,000 in damages and the insurance company are claiming that they will not cover this. A real mess if you ask me. Anyway I've spoken to McGregor and hopefully they can help us out of this jam as the appeal is going to cost us an arm and a leg. I would much rather spend the money on a fleet of McGregors !
The judge did not know anything about boating. She sat there and typed everything into a laptop and had to ask for spelling and clarification on Hull, Keel, etc etc .... the lawyer my father-in-law hired also did not know anything about boating - another faut pas. It should have been a slam dunk so I did not get involved. After the ruling and judgement I am flabagasted and we have until August 29th to appeal. Not only did they lose, they have to pay US$40,000 in damages and the insurance company are claiming that they will not cover this. A real mess if you ask me. Anyway I've spoken to McGregor and hopefully they can help us out of this jam as the appeal is going to cost us an arm and a leg. I would much rather spend the money on a fleet of McGregors !
Huh?
Why wasn't your insurance company's lawyer involved from the beginning? "I'd think MacGregor would very much like to correct the record on this. It'd be bad for business if it were officially decided that their boats weren't meeting minimum requirements. Think major legal liability." IMHO: Doubtful, a bad precedent is a bad precedent, easily overturned. All the next Maritime Lawyer has to do is argue that the 'precedent' was poorly litigated. IMHO #2: Rex: your FIL needs a maritime lawyer: they should be able to provide you with information from the public record re cases that they have argued in court if they have any experience at it. You can research to be sure it is not their first marine accident case.
Why wasn't your insurance company's lawyer involved from the beginning? "I'd think MacGregor would very much like to correct the record on this. It'd be bad for business if it were officially decided that their boats weren't meeting minimum requirements. Think major legal liability." IMHO: Doubtful, a bad precedent is a bad precedent, easily overturned. All the next Maritime Lawyer has to do is argue that the 'precedent' was poorly litigated. IMHO #2: Rex: your FIL needs a maritime lawyer: they should be able to provide you with information from the public record re cases that they have argued in court if they have any experience at it. You can research to be sure it is not their first marine accident case.
Following up
I am busy looking for a Maritime Lawyer in Vancouver. I have contacted McGregor and have sent them the photo's and judgement. The worst part of this that they will have to sell their home to pay for the judgement ruling. They do not have the money to pay for the appeal. I am hoping that the McGregor lawyers would take this on as it would be great PR for them and they do potentially have some major liability here. It's sad when one judge can make such a major faut pas as it should have been a slam dunk. The stress that this has caused both our families alone is quite heart breaking. We love the McGregor Boats (and have a newer version).
I am busy looking for a Maritime Lawyer in Vancouver. I have contacted McGregor and have sent them the photo's and judgement. The worst part of this that they will have to sell their home to pay for the judgement ruling. They do not have the money to pay for the appeal. I am hoping that the McGregor lawyers would take this on as it would be great PR for them and they do potentially have some major liability here. It's sad when one judge can make such a major faut pas as it should have been a slam dunk. The stress that this has caused both our families alone is quite heart breaking. We love the McGregor Boats (and have a newer version).
I don't understand
Rex, you say insurance will not pay. I assume this is your father in laws liabilty insurance on his boat. I also assume he got sued and he notified his insurance company. Usually the insuance company hires the attorney to defend the policy owner on the liability claim. Did your father in law not notify his insurance of the crash and then file suit on his own against the power boat? Also I see starboard side damage on the sail boat. Was the MacGreger under sail, if under power I see a different issue than lighting.
Rex, you say insurance will not pay. I assume this is your father in laws liabilty insurance on his boat. I also assume he got sued and he notified his insurance company. Usually the insuance company hires the attorney to defend the policy owner on the liability claim. Did your father in law not notify his insurance of the crash and then file suit on his own against the power boat? Also I see starboard side damage on the sail boat. Was the MacGreger under sail, if under power I see a different issue than lighting.
It's a mess
The insurance company was involved, it was reported and he did have liability coverage. Apparently the lawyer they used was representing both the FIL and the Insurance Company and was taking money from both parties (a legal no no apparently). This was only found out after the fact. The insurance company originally said they would fight the decision but have since recanted. Hence the desperate need to find a good Maritime Lawyer and try and get McGregor themselves to help as they have the financial backing and professional interest to have this overturned.
The insurance company was involved, it was reported and he did have liability coverage. Apparently the lawyer they used was representing both the FIL and the Insurance Company and was taking money from both parties (a legal no no apparently). This was only found out after the fact. The insurance company originally said they would fight the decision but have since recanted. Hence the desperate need to find a good Maritime Lawyer and try and get McGregor themselves to help as they have the financial backing and professional interest to have this overturned.
I'm Sorry
I'm sorry to hear of your troubles on this. Hopefully a better lawyer can help - but I would not expect much help from MacGregor unless they get sued. The boatbuilding business is not a super-profitable thing to be doing - I doubt that they could afford to get involved every time an owner lost a judgement. Sorry to be the one to say that. Please for our education, if you would tell us the full circumstances of the accident - under sail or power, relative courses of the boats involved, did anyone give any signals, speed of the Mac at the time - if Canadian law is to your knowledge affecting this case differently than it might here in the US. Also - I do not understand - if your FIL has liability insurance - how could a judgement could be entered against him w/o it being covered by liability insurance? I thought that was why we have liability insurance - to cover us even if we were the one that had made a mistake? Wish you the best at finding a lawyer who can help you out.
I'm sorry to hear of your troubles on this. Hopefully a better lawyer can help - but I would not expect much help from MacGregor unless they get sued. The boatbuilding business is not a super-profitable thing to be doing - I doubt that they could afford to get involved every time an owner lost a judgement. Sorry to be the one to say that. Please for our education, if you would tell us the full circumstances of the accident - under sail or power, relative courses of the boats involved, did anyone give any signals, speed of the Mac at the time - if Canadian law is to your knowledge affecting this case differently than it might here in the US. Also - I do not understand - if your FIL has liability insurance - how could a judgement could be entered against him w/o it being covered by liability insurance? I thought that was why we have liability insurance - to cover us even if we were the one that had made a mistake? Wish you the best at finding a lawyer who can help you out.
The situation
If you send me an email at rexbaldwin@shaw.ca, I'll send you the judgement and the description of what happened. It was also shown on CBC Television and we have a copy of the video. Cheers. Rex.
If you send me an email at rexbaldwin@shaw.ca, I'll send you the judgement and the description of what happened. It was also shown on CBC Television and we have a copy of the video. Cheers. Rex.
Thanks
Just wanted to say a big thanks. You've helped me out a lot. I'll keep you posted as to the outcome etc.
Just wanted to say a big thanks. You've helped me out a lot. I'll keep you posted as to the outcome etc.
Summary of incident
Here is a summary for you all. Basic Summary is that Marty (my father in law) was motoring along with a 9.9 HP motor at dusk with his lights on. A power boat was racing across the lake, zig zagging. They basically crash into the McGregor at approx 40 knots. It was their first day with the power boat, there were beer cans in the water, the driver blew a caution with the RCMP, their was an retired RCMP witness who was flown in for the case, they did not have insurance etc etc. The judge basically said that the former RCMP officer was mistaken, the speed of the boat was not a factor, the fact that Marty went to port and not to starboard was in break of collision regs (which is not true - you make a clear and decisive move to starboard but do anything to avoid a collision - both parties need to know the rules - they did not have a Pleasure Boat Operators License - not brought up in court), the judge decreed that the brightness of the lights was obviously the deciding factor - they were on and working well and were within Canadian Yachting Association Specs - something that their lawyer also did not bring up in court. Basically a travesty. All now a matter of public record.
Here is a summary for you all. Basic Summary is that Marty (my father in law) was motoring along with a 9.9 HP motor at dusk with his lights on. A power boat was racing across the lake, zig zagging. They basically crash into the McGregor at approx 40 knots. It was their first day with the power boat, there were beer cans in the water, the driver blew a caution with the RCMP, their was an retired RCMP witness who was flown in for the case, they did not have insurance etc etc. The judge basically said that the former RCMP officer was mistaken, the speed of the boat was not a factor, the fact that Marty went to port and not to starboard was in break of collision regs (which is not true - you make a clear and decisive move to starboard but do anything to avoid a collision - both parties need to know the rules - they did not have a Pleasure Boat Operators License - not brought up in court), the judge decreed that the brightness of the lights was obviously the deciding factor - they were on and working well and were within Canadian Yachting Association Specs - something that their lawyer also did not bring up in court. Basically a travesty. All now a matter of public record.
Malpractice
I'm a lawyer and have an Oday 25 in Nashville. I'll be the first to say that in the US, based upon what you have told us, your FIL may have a case of malpractice against the lawyer that botched the case (I do not know what Canadian law says about this). If the lawyer failed to get important evidence into the record, that could be serious for the appeal. Good luck Alan
I'm a lawyer and have an Oday 25 in Nashville. I'll be the first to say that in the US, based upon what you have told us, your FIL may have a case of malpractice against the lawyer that botched the case (I do not know what Canadian law says about this). If the lawyer failed to get important evidence into the record, that could be serious for the appeal. Good luck Alan
Maritime layer in Vancouver
I know a young, keen maritime lawyer in Vancouver. His name is Kim Wigmore. I can't remember the name of the firm he works for but I can find out.
I know a young, keen maritime lawyer in Vancouver. His name is Kim Wigmore. I can't remember the name of the firm he works for but I can find out.
Update
I have retained a top Marine Lawyer here but he may only be able to represent us for half of the case. He is reviewing the judgement to see whether it is possible for an appeal and I'll here back today. We have 4 potential options and may have to pursue them all 1. Appeal 2. Go after the Insurance Company form wrongful denial, which allows punitive damages in Canada 3. Go after the lawyer for bad representation 4. Go after McGregor (subject to the above). I am reluctant to do this as I like their boats and have a new 26. It will depend on how helful they are and the outcome of the above. I am expecting a call back from Robert McGregor today. Will keep you in the loop. If you can find out Kim's contact details, it would be good to have in my back pocket. Thanks again. Rex.
I have retained a top Marine Lawyer here but he may only be able to represent us for half of the case. He is reviewing the judgement to see whether it is possible for an appeal and I'll here back today. We have 4 potential options and may have to pursue them all 1. Appeal 2. Go after the Insurance Company form wrongful denial, which allows punitive damages in Canada 3. Go after the lawyer for bad representation 4. Go after McGregor (subject to the above). I am reluctant to do this as I like their boats and have a new 26. It will depend on how helful they are and the outcome of the above. I am expecting a call back from Robert McGregor today. Will keep you in the loop. If you can find out Kim's contact details, it would be good to have in my back pocket. Thanks again. Rex.
- Status