Another issue of legal liability

[RichH]

I would surmise that for a mooring, since in most cases the mooring and its location are regulated by some governmental agency .... then no, you are not responsible.
If however there is no regulation, then probably you will be responsible, the amount sought depending on how much $$$ is discovered in your 'deep pockets'.
In the present level of civil law in the USA, you as a defendant really have almost NO 'rights'.

Money/greed and the 'opportunism' it causes seems to be the catalyst for our litigious culture ... . A hefty windfall profits tax on contingency fees, and the 'loser' in litigation being required to pay ALL parties legal expenses would go a long way to stop this 'opportunistic plundering'. Most other nations and countries have statutes to prevent this plundering by the legal industry.
As an example, Chile used to have the greatest per capita rate of lawyers to citizens and Chile rapidly descended into a a totally stifled country that quickly lost its productivity and its economic base (to the lawyers), it then corrected the plunder by statute and quickly became a prosperous nation again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_in_the_world_has_most_lawyers_per_capita
Too many shysters, not enough recipes.

 

[Ctskip]

"I would surmise that for a mooring, since in most cases the mooring and its location are regulated by some governmental agency .... then no, you are not responsible"

Now lets read his question...

"If you put a mooring in the bay (not noted on the chart) and someone snags it, is it your fault for putting it there?"

One has no right to place a mooring wherever they feel one should be. Kinda like parking a car wherever one would like to park it. Can't do it, and yes they are responsible for it.

Interesting about Chile. Thanks What will it take till we learn?

Keep it up,
Ctskip

 

[kenn]

I appreciate your sentiments, but disagree with this:

A hefty windfall profits tax on contingency fees, and the 'loser' in litigation being required to pay ALL parties legal expenses would go a long way to stop this 'opportunistic plundering'.

Take away contingency fees and loser pays, and civil justice would only be for the rich.

The current system is already canted in this direction; it's very easy for a rich litigant to wear down a poorer one by simply sustaining the legal farce for as long as possible til the other runs out of funds and energy.

Unfortunately, the US legal system reflects the US emphasis on individual rights trumping other considerations. If there could be a greater recognition of the benefit of pursuing a common good or negotiated outcome vs "my way or no way" (eg by forcing litigants into supervised negotiation or arbitration before permitting a suit to go forward), then suits would lose favour as the weapon of choice.

I can't say I see this happening any time soon . In the meantime, I keep out of everyone else's way (on land or on shore) and I carry insurance...:neutral:

The town was so small that a single lawyer couldn't make a living. TWO lawyers would both do just fine...

 

[shemandr]

Would putting a notice in the Weekly Notice to Mariners' suffice to end liability?
I'm not clear on this situation: Was there a mark or buoy attached when the fisherman snagged it or was the mooring just there on the bottom?
There are uncharted hazards all over our sailing area. Most of themare placed by fisherman. Most of them are attached to buoys. If I get one fouled in my prop is the fisherman responsible?

 

[RichH]

"Take away contingency fees and loser pays, and civil justice would only be for the rich."

I would greatly disagree with that, ...as (as a parallel) the current trend in health insurance and health care delivery system is impending the reduction of the 'priority availability to the 'rich''. It would/should then follow that the same should be done to the 'legal industry' (a probable greater overall cost to society than the medical): regulated and defined costs of defense etc., government-service lawyers (at forced reduction in rates or 'standardized rates'), high risk 'legal' pools, etc. etc. etc. --- the GOVERNMENT assumes and delivers all 'legal' excursions in all 'civil' matters and just like with and to mirror the impending government run HMOs, etc. etc. etc. etc. - a citizen would be provided a 'government lawyer' and at government cost (modified perhaps to be under mandatory universal 'legal insurance').

If the 'government' can control and regulate the whole of the 'medical industry', it should follow that government can easily use the exact same/similar statutes, regulations and methodologies to regulate/control the 'legal industry'. If almost the total entirety of 'medicine' can be regulated, etc. for the benefit of society, then surely also the government can regulate/control/or entirely assume the 'legal industry' ... for the benefit of society. The cost of BOTH entities on society would be vastly reduced ... and we would gain 'parity' for all.

Remove the PROFIT away from the legal industry ... and we will then have 'equal justice for all', just like we impend 'equal health care for all'.
No one can deny that under current civil law in the US, 'Deep pockets' is what decides the outcome and the pursuit by the legal industry for 'lucre' in civil matters ... let the government take over and control/manage/ AND entirely DELIVER/DISPENSE civil law .... and provide 'equal treatment for all'. If Exxon, etc. can be berated for 5% net profit, then most assuredly a 30-50% contingency fee and horrendous 'billable hours charges' (only for the benefit of one particular 'class') can be 'regulated' and returned and redistributed to 'society'.
The super-overabundance of plundering lawyers cannot have it BOTH WAYS.

;-)

 

[kenn]

Rich that's a minefield of a post, I don't know exactly where to apply the , or whether it's across the board.

Back to the OP subject - fine the fisherman for not having properly registered for the race, and for not holding a current racer's card. But be sure to send him the coveted red Bacardi hat...

 

[RichH]

.... as a kid I adored "Gulliver's Travels" ... still do.

But the lessons and satire of Gulliver's Travels still holds true.

 

[higgs]

Speaking from 40 years of experience, but admitting I don't know the actual law:

Every yacht club with a racing program has buoys and never have I seen them charted or lit. In the Great Lakes, most ports have racing marks scattered about.

I have known lake front property owners who have just thrown a mooring in off their property.

I used to be on a mooring that was controlled by old Bill Richter. No permits no nothing. You bought the rig and he threw it in and took it out each year for $25. He decided where you were placed. New comers were way out there and as you got to know Bill he moved in a little bit closer.

No one was ever held responsible for any fouling of moorings. CG is pretty clear on this. It is the skippers responsibility to keep a lookout.

 

[peptobysmol]

... If you plant a tree and someone walks into it and breaks their nose, is it your fault? If the tree is on YOUR property... you can be sued.

:cussing: