Urgent - McGreggor Lost Law Suit

[Oday sailor]

Correction

Quote"Mr. Irwin, his brother and two friends were wake boarding on Lake Okanagan at the very south end of Peachland. They decided to stop when it got too dark to see the wake"Looks like there where 4 people on Mr. Irwin’s boat how come Mr. Irwin is the only one who claims to have seen a sailboat with no lights? He stated that he yelled at the unlit boat I would think that his yelling would have directed the attention of his 3 other passengers to the unlit boat, yet only Mr. Irwin is testifying, Very suspicious Quote "They decided to stop when it got too dark to see the wake"By the way if its two dark to see a wake under your feet don’t you think it might be to dark to by flying on a high speed plane 60 meters from shore and 30 meters from a designated and buoyed swimming area ?

 

[Ramblin' Rod - Mac 26D - SeaQuell]

O'day Sailor...

The testimony of 3 shore witnesses that they saw a sailboat silouette, and believe they saw a light on it, is not evidence that it was "properly lit". Other credible testimony clearly indicated it was not "properly lit". Even Mr. Thatcher's own testimony does not indicate that he turned on a (col reg required) steaming light. The judge had no choice but to rule, based on the evidence, that the sailboat was not "properly lit". There's no latitude here; it simply wasn't. A silouette of something can be observed from any direction. Your belief that she must have observed the boat from an angle of 90 degrees is without any grounds. Even if she had observed it from exactly 90 degrees, she should have noticed the white stern light and steaming light, or a single all around white light (if the boat was "properly lit").RE: Left Turn. Your statement that Mr. Thatcher was not obligated to turn to starboard is completely incorrect. He was obligated to make this maneuver the instant he realized he was on a head on collision course. From his own testimony he knew it for at least 15 seconds. If he had time to turn to port, why (do you speculate) could henot have turned to starboard as he was obligated to? Please show me where in the col regs he was not obligated to turn to starboard? Reliance on the clause to take any steps necessary to avoid collision is flawed. There is no evidence that had he turned to starboard, in compliance with colregs, that a collision would have been eminent or occured. The fact that one did occcur after he turned to port, is clear evidence that the correct action would have been to turn to starboard.Please show me where, in the col regs, it states that you must know that the other boat sees you for the obligation to turn to starboard in this situation, to be applicable?(This doesn't exist.) Mr. Thatcher was obligated to turn to starboard. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that the risk of collison was lessened by turning to port. In fact, quite the contrary, because he turned to port, the power boat smashed into him broadside. Had he blasted his horn 5 times and held course or turned to starboard (as obligated under the circumstances), the collision may have been completely avoided.All of your writing on the motor boat's speed has no bearing. There is no clear evidence that the powerboat was even going fast. Mr. Thatcher's guess on its speed is severely flawed. (Do the math; .6km in 15 seconds is 144 km/hr.) He stated a guess of 55 to 65 kph. Obviously he had no idea how fast the boat was going. Whereas, the powerboater's speed claim is credible. Please show me in the colregs where a vessel's speed is limited to displacement due solely to darkness? (Doesn't exist.) Please show me any credible evidence that shore lights had a bearing on the powerboater's visibility? (There is none.) Therefore, there is no evidence to base an opinion that the boat was being operated at an unsafe speed.There is no restriction on how fast one can drive a vessel on a body of water in the darkness unless posted. To declare the speed of the motorboat as unsafe, first one would have to know what the speed was, (and we don't), and second one would require evidence that the shore lights detrimentally affected the powerboater's vision, (and we don't). The existance of shore lights does not in and of itself restrict speed to displacement mode at night. (I have no idea where you came up with that claim. Maybe it is what you personally would chosse to do. That doesn't obligate anyone else to do same, nor does it establish that not to do so is unsafe.)The most credible testimony on the motor boats speed is from the operator, who estiamted he was going about 30 km/hr (18 knots), which is generally considered a safe speed under these circumstances. (The extent of damage supports the power boaters speed claim to be far more likely.) Again and for the last time, there is no evidence to support that the motor boats speed had anything to do with the cause of the collision. There is no evidence to support that the motor boater was not keeping proper watch. There is no evidence to support that motor boater did anything wrong at all.Whereas, all evidence supports that the sailboat operator made an incorrect left turn in violation of colregs, and that the sailboats lights did not comply with colreg requirements.Case Closed.

 

[Oday sailor]

Inconsistency in Mr. Schell’s testimony

Mr. Schell testified.Quote[48] “There was no time to turn the motorboat to avoid the sailboat.”Mr. Schell also testified Quote[53] ”In his view, the two boats would not have collided if they had both turned right, or starboard, as the law requires.”First he states that There was no time to turn the motorboat then he claimed that if they both would have turned to starboard the collision would not have happened (Can you spell Inconsistency)

 

[Oday sailor]

col regs

Rod I have fully outlined the problems with the judgment and I’m not going to argue col regs with you, I have a copy sitting in front of me Do you?I also hold a USCG Unlimited Master Mariners Certificate and am employed based on that certification. I deal with Col Regs on a daily basis and can assure you that most recreational boaters have very little understanding of the rules of the road, If they did then People like me who make our living driving “Big boats” would not have to deal with them blundering in front of us on a daily basis. more often then not it is a power boat!Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however I did Fax a copy of both the judgment and my original post to a friend of mine who is a Retired USCG officer (JW). On his behalf I wont mention his derogatory comments on the ineptness the Honorable Madam Justice A.W. MacKenzie in interpreting relevant laws.However I will pass on to Rex and his father in law JW’s best wishes, His opinion is consistent with mine and to quote our phone conversation  “ The judgment is contrary to the testimony quoted and seems to be based on a foolish misunderstanding of basic rule’s of the road. It appears that Mr. Martin Thatcher needs to find competent counsel and pursue this mater until this travesty is rectified. The worst possible out come for Mr Thatcher should have been a judgment of mutual responsibility. Finding Mr Thatcher completely at fault is a travesty of Justice.JW was concerned that there was no mention of a steaming light on the mast of the sailboat but even it was absent it would not have been cause for complete fault. If the boat had been under sail then all that would have been required would have been Port and starboard Nav. lights along with a stern light according to two witness’s there was indeed a Port light visible and since bow lights on this boat uses a single bulb for both port and starboard its reasonable to believe that it’s starboard light was illuminated as well, what would have been Mr Schell excuse if the boat was under sail? Jeff also stated. While investigating many sailboat related collisions we often our confronted with witnesses who did not see a steaming light most of the time the light was indeed illuminated but since it’s mounted so high on the mast it blends in with street lights on shore. (Jeff would be talking about instances on San Francisco bay where street lights are abundant) could be relevant in this case as well.So Rex if you are still following this thread. Find counsel that has court room experience in maritime law. Although if accepting fault means that your FIL insurance will cover the collision and subsequent judgment that may also be an option. Personally I would not accept fault if I was not at fault, I have a professional reputation to protect

 

[Oday sailor]

COLREGS Rule 23

Quote“single all around white light (if the boat was "properly lit").”Rod you really don’t have a clue as to the required navigation lights aboard a Recreational Vessel single all around white light is not a requirement its is optional in case you don’t understand optional it means not obligatory, voluntary, non-compulsory.Mr. Thachers vessel overall length was below 12 meters and above 7 meters. Under power he was required to have A forward facing “Steaming Light” A Port Red side navigation Light A Starboard Green side navigation lightAnd a Aft facing white lightOr an optional all around white light to replace the forward facing “Steaming Light” and Aft facing white light COLREGS Rule 23Power-driven Vessels Underway(a)A power-driven vessel underway shall exhibit:•(i) a masthead light forward;•(ii) a second masthead light abaft of and higher than the forward one;except that a vessel of less than 50 meters in length shall not be obliged to exhibit such a light but may do so;•(iii) sidelights: and•(iv) a sternlight.(b) An air-cushion vessel when operating in nondisplacement mode shall, in addition to the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule, exhibit an all-round flashing yellow light. (c)•(i) A power-driven vessel of less than 12 meters in length may in lieu of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule exhibit an all-round white light and sidelights.•(ii) a power-driven vessel of less than 7 meters in length whose maximum speed does not exceed 7 knots may in lieu of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule exhibit an all-round white light and shall, if practicable, also exhibit sidelights.•(iii) the masthead light or all-round white light on a power-driven vessel of less than 12 meters in length may be displaced from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel if centerline fitting is not practicable, provided the sidelights are combined in one lantern which shall be carried on the fore and aft centerline of the vessel or located as nearly as practicable in the same fore and aft line as the masthead light or all-round white light.

 

[Oday sailor]

Warning for owners of USCG approved Nav. Lights

This comment by the Honorable Madam Justice A.W. MacKenzie should be of concern to the manufacture of Mr. Thatchers Vessel This is in the text of the official ruling Quote[79] Moreover, assuming the three ”shore” witnesses did see a red light on the sailboat, it would have been the small red light on the port side of the bow. This would mean the small green light on the starboard side of the bow would also have been on since the two lights operate from one switch and use the same bulb. But those lights are small, and are not sufficient to alert oncoming boats in dark conditions.What the judge is saying is that even if Mr. Thatcher’s running light had been on he would still have been found responsible because the lights where to small to be useful. So it looks like it did not mater if Mr. Thatcher had his running light on or not. The Honorable Madam Justice A.W. MacKenzie ruled that the lights installed where to small to be effectively seen by other boaters and would still have ruled in favour of Mr. Schell. If the lights installed on Mr Thatchers boat are stock and if they meet and are USCG approved then the Honorable Madam Justice A.W. MacKenzie has just ruled that USCG approved navigation lights are not sufficient to alert oncoming boats in dark conditions and owners of vessels that have such lights could be held liable. If I owned a boat in Canada I would be very interested in the final out come of this issues. Every time I read the Honorable Madam Justice A.W. MacKenzie “Reasons for Judgment “ I am flabbergasted at the reasoning behind her decisions. The more I read it the more I realize that Mr. Thatcher never had a chance in her courtBy the way is there any relation between MacKenzie and McKenzie, what is the significance in the spelling differences ?

 

[K9piper]

ouch

The question was is there any difference between the name when it is Mc or Mac. Well actually no. Back in the clanish days and moving forward toward our now date, the part of the name Mac stood for son of and then the name.For example the name McCutcheon would stand for son of Cutcheon . This name is a sept name of the clan MacDonald which makes it part of the clan MacDonald.When one moved out of the clan to a new location some would drop a letter in the son of part of the name for good luck and even for shortining the name and again if the longer version of the name had a bad hard or bad time of it at the old home place (social change as well). The main reason was for luck in a new begining.The second part is the question of being related. Well according to clanish history we if in the same clan were all related in one way or another, by blood or marriage. THey ( the chiefs) would let names or families in as a sept who gave the loyality to the clan. They would be considered a relation as well but in a non blood , marriage being.So can the judge and the botar Mc be related maybe so but many many many years ago. Now for the big statement aren't we all related under the watchful eye of God?Names are names , people are people, if the judge was a relation we should assume that in all honesty to the court the judge would remove herself from the case.Hope this long winded Clanish History lesson helps. I attempted to shorten it but if you are interested do a search on Celtic history and clans.K9piper

 

[Chris3720]

Completely off topic

but Oday's photo made me think of this. This ws in Ludington, MI a few weeks ago. I don't know the details, but it was a clear morning, very little wind (ie. no big waves). I wonder how they did not see the lighthouse??ChrisM25 Chara

 

[OldCat]

Well, have you heard the one about

Well, have you heard the one about the two powerboaters who ran into the Chandlery? Well - you would think that at least ONE of them would have seen it!Apologies to PBers - its a joke from a sailing school where I took a class last year.

 

[Lee]

Lighthouse photo

Excellent photo Chris! The question of why the boat operator did not see the lighthose is irrelevent. I have spoken with Judge MacKenzie, and as we all expected, she has decided that indeed, it was all the lighthouse's fault!

 

[OldCat]

Another Collision Story

This also from a sailing instructor out of Marina Del Rey (CA):Couple leaves MDR for Catalina Island - they clear the harbor - set the autopilot and the go below for a little action. They forgot about the offshore tanker terminal south of the harbor - centerpunched a moored oil tanker and sank the boat!Even Sailors make (dumb) boo boos.So - how did that PB wind up on the breakwater?

 

[Chris3720]

Another photo

Here is another photo. I have no idea how it got there. The "story" on the breakwater was that it happened earlier that morning, no details though. The CG may know what happened as you can clearly see their station from where the boat was parked. The boat was completley out of the water, see photo, and had to be going all out. Looks like a 27ft boat, rigged for fishing.I didn't get to see the next days paper or TV news to see if there was any information given. I have to imagine that the "captin" of the boat set the GPS for the harbor and not the end of the pier and went below for another beer.A local did say that it happens a few times a summer.Your are right, the light house was probably at fault!!ChrisM25 Chara

 

[Lee]

The saga continues.......

This has turned into quite the epic saga, with our main players Oday, Rod and of course, the inimitable Judge MacKenzie. Enter new cast member in this tragic soap opera, Lee. Rex' closest friend, Bermuda engine operaters ticket holder (marine) and British issued CAA Private (aviation) Pilots License holder. Lee is completely in aggreement with Oday, who is the voice of sanity in this play. Lee decides to confront Rod, the evil cohort of Judge MacKenzie.......Lee: "Rod, why do you continue to spew forth such nit-picking technicalities about the lights on the sailboat?"Rod: "Because the Judge did"Lee: "Ok.Are you a lawyer or judge, because you sure sound like one of our legal buffoons?"Rod: "No, but I would like to be"Lee: "Why do you say that speed had nothing to do with the collision?"Rod: "Because the Judge said, so there!"Lee: "Ok. Well, let's put aside all the legal crap for a minute and refer to the laws of common sense shall we, my little judge worshipping chap? Now, if it was late at night, would you turn out all the lights in your home and then run around from room to room at full speed?"Rod: "No. That would be silly! I would run into a wall and hurt myself!"Lee: "Exactly! Do you see where I'm leading with this analogy Rod?"Rod: "No"Lee: "No, I didn't think you would. Hey, Oday, can you talk some sense into Rod?"Oday: "Impossible. Already tried. But hey, I think he should try your idea of running around the house in the dark, it may knock some sense into him!"Lee: "Yeah! Go on Rod, it'll be fun!"Rod: "No way. I'm not doing what you two tell me"The Judge flies in on her broomstick......Judge: "Do it Rod!"Rod: "Ok. Whatever you say Judge"Rod does, and proves that lack of common sense can have devastating effects by running into a brick wall and breaking his nose.......Rod: "Ohhh, now I see your point"everyone laughs jovially. Scene ends.The lesson here? If you see Rod or his ilk out on the water, give them a very wide berth, becuse thet will crash into you and YOU will be held liable. Having read everything I can on this case, it is my OPINION that the sailboats lights were on, the sternlight issue is irrelevent as the PB was head on, the PB was operated at an imprudent speed, alcohol did play a part, turning to port MIGHT have been the safest thing to do at the time, the PB would NOT plane at 18mph, and the judge was, for unknown reasons, biased and should be evaluated for mental instabilty. The national speed limit on our roads is 55mph, but many highways now post 65mph limits with one caveat......"conditions permitting" Two words: common sense. I sincerely hope Mr. Thatcher can obtain favourable resolution in this matter. Best of luck to Rex and his family.Oday, good writing Sir. Rod, sorry to cast you in such a negative way.It's not personal, but I think 99% of people would take the opposite view to yours.

 

[Denis]

Sailors boo boo too!

Tthis guy just broke the transatlantic record and fell asleep on the way back to France. Judge Mackenzie will probably rule that it is the French government fault for putting that coast line so far in the ocean! (They are still investigating the size of the light bulb in the lighthouse so she has not rendered her final opinion)

 

[Rex]

Still laughing

Lee - thanks mate that was superb. I am still laughingDenis - gotta love a sense of humourOday - Your the man. I'd sail with you anytime. Thanks buddy. Your comments have eased the stress on the inlaws and associated family.I think I am going to make boating hats - maybe with Port/Starburd/Stern Light We could call it the McKenzie? There is no patent on names as I would have sued many times as there are a lot of Dogs called Rex out there.

 

[Lee]

Oday and Rod

Rod and Oday, please continue the discussion as I need more material to turn this event into a screenplay. Hopefully I'll make enough money to buy a good lawyer for Rex's FIL. Coming to a movie theater near you soon......."Titanic: Did it have it's lights on?"

 

[John]

Titanic correction

Sorry Lee, butTitanic... and an iceberg of epic proportionsWas the iceberg lit properly. Did it proceed in accordance with colregs.andDesperate Judiciarythe steamy wakeboarder that turned a case

 

[Rex]

Ice Berg would win

If the Ice Berg would of sued it would have one. The Titanic didn't stand a chance in court.I am truly ashamed of our (now being Canadian) legal system. I am rpoud to be Canadian, especially as a Hockey Fan. But this whole case has shown how one person (a judge) can negatively impact a whole boating community. Makes me sad.If everyone had common sense I'd be out of a job. But sometimes Sanity should prevail.Oday - thanks again. It must have taken you quite some time to put those responses together. Much appreciated.

 

[Rex]

Update

LatestOur Marine Lawyer has had to withdraw because he represents the Insurance Lawyer. He has given me a good lititgation lawyer against the insurance company. The other top notch lawyer I had is actually representing the Insurance Company. Based on Oday's feedback and my own gut feel I think that we have a great chance of appealing and winning but the situation would be that would be further in debt? What should one do?Honour says go to town on the judge and go for an appeal. It'll take a couple of years and the in-laws would just have to pay legal in the interim? Beats selling or remorgaging their house?Comments? Deadline is Monday.Cheers.Rex.

 

[Rex]

Clutching at Straws

I had an idea, maybe its worth nothing but "nothing ventured, nothing gained".Judge MacKenzie has cast a negative on the sport/interest/hobby that we all take pride in. As I am a man of honour I take this personally.I really want to appeal this decision, independent of cost, because the only true vindication is to get this judgment overturned and, while it should not be a cost issue, it should be faught.What I was thinking was I should get some "Free FIL" T-shirts made with a photo of the accident. I am sure the family and friends would chip in and then I would just ask the Sailing Community to help.If I sold them for US$10 each to support the in-laws to support the appeal this would potentially work. US$10 for us is nothing - the costs for them are everything. I am not soliciting from you guys/girls but do you think this would work?Rather than post loads of answers on this forum maybe write to me directly at my email address?Thanks again guys/girls. You've helped more than you know (even you Rod).Cheers.Rex.