Need help with a rogue 108' Sunseeker

Well since that was directed at me, I'll be happy to respond.

"(2) Any person operating a vessel upon the waters of this state shall operate the vessel in a reasonable and prudent manner, having regard for other waterborne traffic, posted speed and wake restrictions, and all other attendant circumstances so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. The failure to operate a vessel in a manner described in this subsection constitutes careless operation. However, vessel wake and shoreline wash resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel shall, absent negligence, not constitute damage or endangerment to property. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a noncriminal violation as defined in s. 775.08.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/vessels/327.33.html"

Note the "reasonable and prudent" part along with the "However" and "absent negligence" bits.

It's not always black and white in every country and state. Laws can be and are open to interpretation. That was my point.

Hi,

CaptBill I see that what Stan posted referred to a Federal Regulation and what you show a link to seems to be Florida biased.

How does Florida Law and Rules etc transpose to the area where this wake incident was supposed to have taken place and does it have any greater power to address the issue than the CFR quoted by YES?

I would think FL law is meaningless in the area where this took place. And obviously I was not claiming it had any. Only using it to point out that the "you are responsible for your wake at all times" laws are open to some legal interpretation as to what degree of responsibility you can be assigned. Based, it would seem, on the circumstances of the case.


As to whether state or federal laws hold the greater power or precedence
in these cases, that would be a question for a maritime attorney.

Hopefully I will never need to ask one.

Since the incident happened in the C&D canal, more local law may be worth a glance... for the sake of examining the tremendous grey area and room for interpretation, of course.

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Info/Pages/Rules.aspx

The above seems pretty clear-cut and idiot proof.

No grey area and no excuse of necessity or other non-sense, just proceed according to the Boating Regulations..

(Boy do I hate ignorant arseholes at high speed... )

Yes it does in the case at hand as described.

But note that even the Delaware law uses the terms "appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions." and the wording "No person shall operate a vessel at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable having regard to conditions and circumstances".

I don't know about you but I'm willing to bet a good defense attorney is going to latch onto those and try and run with them in cases involving different circumstances.

Yeah and a good defense attorney got O.J. Simpson off murder charges some years ago because the jury was too stupid to understand the DNA evidence.

Surely it could happen again in a case of reckless boat driving, but the point is that if Captains use the intent of the regulations to drive carefully so as not to injure anybody or damage property, we would not need the fancy lawyers trying to pick the regs apart.

Surely you agree on that?

(Or are you trying to make a case for wreckless driving, ignorance and stupidity based on loop-holes in the law?)

Didn't think so.

And that defense attorney will have his a$$ handed to him for overlooking the very next words - Section 2. Responsibility of Operator.
The operator of any vessel on the waters of this State shall be legally responsible for injuries, damages to life, limb, or property caused by his/her vessel or vessel wake.


Reasonable or unreasonable speed, the operator of the vessel is liable for damage caused by his wake.

That means you, too, Cap.

Federal law supercedes state law and local ordinances.
and post 20 says there have been communications: "There has been some communications which indicate that the owners of the vessel are in reality "stand-up" people, and may not be aware of what has happened."

Seems like quite a bit of emotion on this subject- and as usual emotion clouds judgement. There are obvious gray areas- if there is no "no wake" sign, and no obvious boats nearby and you have a wake that then hits a duck hunter in a blind boat and sinks him- what is the law gonna say? It all seems to come down to the raw emotion of "i hate big powerboaters" instead of calm reasonable voices talking. Drop the emotion everyone, deal with facts, and move forward. I certainly do not like the "mob rule" spoke of earlier.

"(Or are you trying to make a case for wreckless driving, ignorance and stupidity based on loop-holes in the law?)"

Obviously not.

Anymore than by pointing out that there are legal degrees of murder would some how imply I am advocating murder.

Surely the owner, who was most likely at the helm, knows the height of the wakes his boat leaves behind when on plane? I think he just didn't care.

Well at least somebody gets my point.

And that is why the law has words like, "appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions." in it. Some of you may not like that. But it doesn't change the fact.

What evidence do you have that "he" (can you confirm it's a male owner?) was at the helm? Pure conjecture at this time- and your "I think he just did not care" is again pure conjecture. Unless you post concrete evidence of such claims you are part of the mob rule and this post was your burning torch calling for blood. Certainly not yachtforums standards.

I have to agree here, especially when a 1st time poster is allowed to post a photograph of the "alleged" guilty parties here, based on hearsay. (post #5).

Hey newbie if you bother to read I said "MOST LIKELY" not that he actually WAS at the helm. Might have been one of his drunk buddies for all I know. And I doubt very seriously if the owner is female that she would allow such irresponsible sailing.

"Burning torch calling for blood" jeez man calm down.

Yes and no. States have the right to enact more stringent laws provided they do not countermand Federal edict. States do not have the ability to enact laws less strict than Federal, or in that case Federal supersedes the state.

In this case Delaware is pretty explicit and definitely more stringent.

A skipper is obligated to reduce speed to a reasonable rate, but even if he deems that rate reasonable, he is still - unquestionably - liable for damage caused by his wake in the eyes of the law.

None of the YF regulars are calling for blood, you need to calm yourself. Throwing accusations to counter accusations is not called for in this (or any) instance.

Some of us enjoy going fast, faster than most even. We are just responsible enough to know there is a time and place for such things. A crowded channel is neither time nor place, and one reckless fool is all it takes to make things even tougher on all boat owners and captains in the future.

Hmm, wise words, even from a stink-potter....

Thanks and hat off, there is some common sense somewhere in the powerboat/motor/megayacht crowd if you just look around a bit..

Ok here's a post from one of the people who is a victim in this situation;

So this is why my good friend C_Spray posted this thread. As you can see this was a serious breach of maritime ethics and was a dangerous situation for all involved. We believe the Captain broke the law and should be prosecuted in court.

We hope that the good people on this site will help if they can. We may be high performance powerboaters but we're all boat lovers and we all respect Maritime Law.