Urgent - McGreggor Lost Law Suit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 24, 2005
15
- - Halcyon
Hi K9piper

Thanks for the info it was very informative. There are quite a few cultures that use some form of identification in the last name that refers to “son of” or “daughter of” I was not familiar with this one. Just for clarification I was not inferring any misconduct on behalf of the justice with regard to any relation between the litigants. I was just curious about the significance in the difference in spelling between MacKenzie and McKenzie
 
Jun 7, 2004
334
Coronado 35 Lake Grapevine, TX
Turning To Port

None of you folks that are yelling and screaming that the powerboater HAD to have been at fault have explained the illegal turn to port. Saying it "may have been safer" doesn't cut it. WHY might it have been safer? How to you explain how he turned, and then advanced far enough to be hit midships if that was the best move? Even the FIL didn't explain it. He acknowledged that he knew the rules, but didn't say why he turned to port. Bottom line is, in my opinion, was that two boats met under power head on. Both boats were supposed to turn to starboard. Neither did. The one boat that DID turned did so the wrong way, and got hit broadside. Then, the boat operator that turned the wrong way sued (he was the plaintiff, remember). The boat opterator that didn't turn the wrong way countersued. The plaintiff lost. I think he should have. I think the only better outcome from a more experienced maritime judge would have been a split judgement.
 
Aug 24, 2005
15
- - Halcyon
Hi Herb

there is an old saying “when in doubt show your red light” I am really concerned about the lack of common sense and education among recreational boaters. It seems as though many boaters have very little understanding of the “rules of the road” and the admiralty law that governs them, Instead of education they seem to prefer to grasp on to single lines of text as gospel . This is not a new case many similar cases have been ruled upon in the united states and other parts of the world. The sailboats turn to port would only have been relevant if the powerboat operator had seen him and expected him to turn to starboard or storgenbord. Once the captain of the sailboat had determined that the other vessel was unaware of his presence and that a collision was eminent then rule 14a is no longer in effect and rule 2b ,among others becomes dominant. The Coast Guard has ruled and has been upheld to the point of precedence that “Nothing in the rules shall prevent the operator of a vessel form taking any and all action’s necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury once a collision is deemed eminent” Rule 14a is only there to help prevent collisions it is no longer in effect once a collision is deemed eminent. If the captain of the sailboat determined that a collision was eminent and that turning to port was his best chance to avoid or reduce injury then he was indeed acting in full compliance of the relevant regulations. I’m assuming that since there where no fatalities that his choice to turn to port could have been a factor in preventing fatalities (most likely his own). Since he was sitting on the port side of the vessel turning to port placed as much fibreglass between him and the approaching vessel as possible, while still taking evasive action on the other hand a turn to starboard looks like it would have caused impact to occur further aft toward or in and about the cockpit area. Once again “Nothing in the rules shall prevent the operator of a vessel form taking any and all action’s necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury once a collision is deemed eminent” Will You Be Seen In Time? Check Your Navigation Lights follow the link
 
R

Ramblin' Rod - Mac 26D - SeaQuell

Absolute Horse Pucky!!

According to Mr. Thatcher' own testimony, he had ascertained that the vessel's may be on a collision course with almost 2000 ft betwee them. At that point we was obligated to make a clear and decisive turn to starboard (which would have taken him into deeper water rather than shallows) to take the motor boat down his port side. Please tell me how from 2000 feet away on a dark night, Mr' Thatcher ascertained that a boat travellling at 65 kph (his estimate but most likely more horse pucky) had not detected him? To claim "any evasive action" had to be taken at that point legitimising the turn to port is nonsense. The sailboat had an 8 foot beam, 4 ft of boat to port of centreline. The sailboat was stuck in the aft section after the turn, (likely 18 feet aft). Had the sailboat turned to starbaord, as he was obligated, rather than port, in direct violation of colregs, there would have been an approximate 10 foot gap between the boats when they passed. O'Day Sailor, you continue to rely on twisted perceptions of the colregs to support your arguments and ignore the evidence before the judge on which she was obligated to make her ruling.
 
Jun 7, 2004
334
Coronado 35 Lake Grapevine, TX
Show Your Red Light

Oday You make too many assumptions, on too many things. First of all, I'm not ignorant of the colregs, nor have I substituted education for "single lines of text as gospel." The FACT is that I hold a US Coast Guard Master's license for steam motor or sail. Secondaly, the "when in doubt show your red light" means to turn to starboard. When you do so, you show your red port light to the other boater (but then, you knew that right?) You stated "I’m assuming that since there where no fatalities that his choice to turn to port could have been a factor in preventing fatalities (most likely his own)", yet you provide absoltuely nothing on which to base that "assumption". The FACT was that in his testimony, the FIL offered NO reason for turning to port instead of to starboard. As Rod pointed out, you seem to be twisting the rules to suit YOUR desire to put the sailboat operator in the right. The facts just simply don't bear it out. My opinion is that he was mostly in the wrong, and should have never brought the lawsuit. He didn't, he wanted someone to blame for his mistake, and got himself in deeper.
 
R

Ramblin' Rod

Exactly Herb,

I had never head the "show 'em red" phrase before, but that essentially means that if you are on a head on collision course, "TURN TO STARBOARD". By making a clear and decisive turn to starboard, you expose your red, (and only red) bow light to the oncoming boater. I severelly doubt that O'Day Sailor has the credentials claimed, or he wouldn't be making the errors he is, or even have to refer to colregs to know that the sailboat operator did not comply to them.
 
L

Lee

Please Rod

Rod and Herb, please, come on now! Clearly you haven't read my little comment (The saga continues:8/26/05) You are both beginning to look sillier and sillier. Are you both bloody lawyers!? All this rattling on about turning this way or that: ridiculous! Stop it now. You are both clearly dangerous mariners. Herb, an assumption is merely that. It is something akin to an opinion.None of us actually know the truth of this incident, therefore we are all ignorant of the FACTS and thus unqualified to make assumptions. Further,you have shown your own lack of intelligence by stating that Mr. Thatcher offered no testimony to his reason for turning to port. Well, matey, show me some testimony against his turning to starboard! You can't can you? Why? Because you didn't read the bloody court transcript, did you? No, you only read the (moronic) judge's summary! If you want to surmise on something, surmise on this: I am getting a bit cross with your cretinous correspondence. You are both wanna-be lawyers. Go get a real life and stop annoying the rest of us who live in the real world of sanity! Again, go read my earlier writings on this subject and don't you dare cast aspersions upon my creibility. Herb, I will write another episode to my saga and believe me buddy, you will be a new star player.Why not address the FACT of velocity? I would love to read how you explain the stupid speed of the PB! I will await your response.
 
D

Dan McGuire

Bottom Line

You can argue regulations until you are blue in the face. The bottom line is that a sailboat is basically helpless against a power boat operating at high speed. Regardless of fault, what this means to me is that when sailing at night, the sailboat must make sure whether he is seen. The navigation lights may not be adequate whether legal or not. Reduced visibility due to atmospheric conditions or alcohol may render them invisible. In addition they can be covered by the sails, bathing suits or whatever might be hung in that general area. That means carrying a portable light to shine on the sails or even to point near the power boat without blinding him. By the way, reading through all of this, I believe the power boater was at fault. He should have seen the sailboat and was going to fast for conditions.
 
L

Lee

Herb

Herb, as much as I'm known to enjoy a jolly good debate, no, I don't usually take things so personal, and in fact welcome sensible opposition. However, in this case, the judges "differing viewpoint" could cause Rex' FIL to lose all that he owns. It smacks of injustice and 99% of people seem to agree with me. I simply wish to see good common sense prevail. I'm sure Rod and yourself are nice guys; it is your illogical reasoning that I am attacking.
 
May 6, 2004
916
Hunter 37C Seattle
What I take away from this

is always have the air horn at arm's reach and avoid getting T-boned. I just came back after a three day cruise and numerous times in daylight, whether I was under sail or power, when I was the stand on,I experienced crossing and bow on situations with big and small power boats where collision was going to occur within 30 seconds unless the other boat altered course. I reached for the horn with 10 seconds to go a few times only to have the other boat alter course. My fixed mental plan is 5 blasts at 10 seconds to collision and at 5 seconds I am going to turn my boat bow on with port side showing. I am not going to get t-boned. A bow on glancing blow is going to minimize crew and boat damage. Then assuming I am around the day after, I am gong to report everything to my insurance company, including my final bow on turn. If I am sued, I will promptly notify my insurance company. Any one have a better plan of action? I am tired of muttering "Does he see us, does he see us?" or "We are under sail, just stand on." I need a plan.
 
Jun 7, 2004
334
Coronado 35 Lake Grapevine, TX
Illogical Reasoning?

Sorry Lee, but you didn't point out any "illogical reasoning", only personal attacks. I maintained, and still do, that the FIL turned improperly. That's my opinion then, and still is. And no, you weren't merely attacking our "illogical reasoning". As a matter of fact, you never showed where the direction he turned was proper. Instead, you resorted to name calling and personal attacks in your little rant. Are these examples of your "logic"? "You are both clearly dangerous mariners." "You are both wanna-be lawyers." "Go get a real life" "Stop annoying the rest of us" "... don't you dare cast aspersions upon my creibility." "Herb, I will write another episode to my saga ... you will be a new star player" I can't speak for Rod, but I certainly didn't resort to any of the silliness you see above. Personal attacks and name-calling don't amount to credibility. We have differing opinions on whether or not the father in law is right, but reality is, our opinions aren't what count, the judges involved are the ones that have the final say. I think you're leading the FIL down the same bad path he chose when he decided to sue. That is taking a risk on a case that he will likely ultimately lose. He SHOULD go after the insurance company, but I think anything else, and he's throwing good money after bad.
 
R

Rex

Update

Hi All, Just a quick update. We concluded through several lawyers that the chances of getting the judgment over turned was minimal but the cost of doing so would actually leave us in a worse financial position. Even with a 100% reversal, given the opposition does not have insurance, it would mean that we would have to pay the insurance company back the boat coverage they paid and may not receive the money that we were owed from the other parties. Summary - a lost cause. I have retained a really good Insurance Lawyer who is going after the insurance for wrongful denial. We seem to have a good case and so are working down that avenue. As you predicted McGregor did not call me back as promised and so that is bad PR from them as far as we are concerned. The judgment still stands against the lighting on the boat and now the deadline for appeal has past this now stands as a fact of law and this case can be referred to by future incidents. I just hope that this does not impact their sales but am disappointed that they made a commitment to respond and did not honour their commitments. Thanks again for all your input. I'll let you know the final outcome. Kind regards, Rex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.