TowBoatUS tows sailboat into bridge

Hi,

Any photos or other demonstration of the event ?

and I guess are venting their frustration on Yachtforums.com...

Hi,

If you are so sure that they are to blame it shouldn't be difficult to get a Lawyer to take it to court for you then.

Isn't there an insurance company involved? Wouldn't they pay the owner then go after the towing company?

If there is no insurance on the boat owner's side then surely there is on the towing company. It sounds like a simple deal for an ambulance chaser.

Unless there are a couple of chapters missing from this story.

One possible complication there is that, if they were using TowBoatUS there is a good chance that their insurance carrier is BoatUS.

And this is your response...

I googled the incident and found nothing which backs your story up.

For the second time ... could you provide some type of proof which backs up your claims and innuendo?

I have seen it on other forums as well, here is a long thread about it: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...off-on-the-blue-heron-bridge-today-57254.html

Hmmmmmmm!

Just spent a few seconds doing the GOOGLE thingie and found this:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/tides-tempers-rise-after-supermoon-1349270.html

You all know how I hate to be controversial , but I can understand there being a lot of gray area in this, and understand why everyone is awaiting the results of the CG investigation. I doubt even that will end this case.
1) I don't pay much attention to 65' and taller fixed bridges since I don't run sails, but I don't think the they all have the ledger boards showing clearance as you find at the bascule bridges.
2) If the owner was on board he, knowing his vessel, is in the best position to know what he'll clear and what he won't.
3) Was this the boat's home port? If so he definitely should have known, and was certainly in the best position of knowledge to know the clearance. Apparently this was where the tow operator was instructed to bring the boat. One would have to assume that the sails crew knew whether they could make it to the port they heading to, and checked the tide in any locations where there might be an issue.
4) Why weren't the two boats in communication with each other. We know that the tow boats always monitor 16, unless they're on a working channel with the boat they're dealing with. So really, it's why wasn't the boat's owner in communication with the tow boat operator.
5) We've only heard the owner's side, in which he claims that the tow boat operator accepted responsibility. a) We don't know and probably never will know if that was 'I really screwed up. We'll take care of it' or 'I'm really sorry this happened to you', and although no lawyer ever wants their client to make any statement at an accident scene. it's not the be all and end all. Some people just go into appology mode when irate people are screaming at them. b) Were there any conversations before about whether the boat will clear the bridge, such as 'do you clear the bridges?' 'Yeah, the bridges are 65', I'm 64'.
6) If the sail was on a stern tow rather than a hip tow, the sails crew may have been the only ones in a position to gauge the bridge clearance once the tow boat was under it. How many times have we all seen sailboats motor to within a few feet of a bridge gauging the clearance and then drop back to rig water bags to heal the boat over before proceeding?
7) Who would understand a sailboat's clearance issues better, the one who owns it and cruises it regularly or a motor head who might have encountered this issue once or twice in his career.
If the owners or crew were not on board, it would have been the complete responsibility of the tow boat, but in this I see a lot of gray and someone trying to bully a settlement rather than use the courts. I kind of envision some money coming out of everyone's pockets. One other question I have, and it could explain much about how things are being handled by all parties, is what's the boats owner do for a living. If he's a lawyer I'd be very suspect of why he's trying to use intimidation rather than the courts to resolve the matter.

Did you read the thread..?

Yes I did. Is there something conclusive that you'd like to point out that I may have missed?

"By the time Connor realized the boat would smash into the bridge, it was too late.

"I literally only had time to say a prayer," he said.

Connor faults the captain from TowBoatU.S. Palm Beach. He said the captain never asked the couple how much clearance the boat needed and should have been aware of the tides."

Perhaps the "captain" of the sailboat should have told the tow boat captain what clearance he needed and been aware of the state of the tide himself.

Unless the placard was missing the clearance at the time should have been visible to both parties. You would think, if it's true that the tow boat captain never asked what the clearance was, that the boat owner would be making **** sure he had the proper clearance. And informing the tow boat captain of those facts.

I usually tend to take a very pro-consumer approach in cases of such sort, but this one indeed sounds quite strange even while basically having only one side of the story.
Basically, towing service is that, towing - with crew aboard the ship being towed, it doesn't sound like "full delivery" to me. E.g. if the owner/cap "only realized the boat would smash into a bridge when it was too late", it's hard to say if towing is at all to blame, or would they just as readily smash there going on their own.
Going technical, a lawyer could claim that clearance height is among a "significant qualities of the boat being towed that could affect the way service is given" that "towing service was not properly and timely informed about by the client" - much like Capt. Bill wrote (and as original thread basically admits to).

Just my 0.02$ to illustrate it's hardly an automatic case. I figure there must be some legal clause about distribution of responsibility in typical towing service offer (and in this particular one) that's really worth reading here.

While the tow boat operator was dealing with currents, trying to keep two boats (only one with power) lined up so as not to be drawn into the sides of the bridge, contacting traffic and taking care of several other concerns, what exactly was Connor doing that he "only had time to say a prayer"? Seems to me he would have nothing to do but watch that his boat wasn't being taken into shallows or under a bridge too low. It's not like they were moving at 30 kts. As the owner of a boat with a 64' mast I'd assume that bridges are a constant concern. Being under tow doesn't signal martini time for the master.
Again, this is going to be one for the courts to apportion liability. Obviously the boat's owner has reason to believe he won't fair well there and is trying to bully a settlement in his favor. He should be very careful, especially since the tow operators are franchisees, and not employed by TowBoatUS.

Why should he be very careful..?

NYCAP probably implied that even if court's favor if won, it could be difficult to actually collect. Not sure if that is really what matters here, tho.