Not sure why, but I feel like I need to be the hijack police here...

If you really want to go down this road, please start a separate thread regarding PRO liabilities, this thread is about skipper/crew.

EDIT: For one thing, if you're the PRO and try to NOT race Hobie 16s when it's blowing 25 knots, you'll get laughed out of the event.

Mike

Thanks, the issue is the skipper here. BTW it was only blowing about 18 gusting to 21 on a lake, no less.

I think my boat is in pretty decent condition but if someone would ask me to
give a guarantee that the mast wont come down in a race I don't think I can.
Can anyone? Would I be liable if a pin breaks?
The sport is not without risk, IMHO that's part of the fun.

IMPO to start if you're not covered by insurance for your catamaran your an idiot plain and simple. For what these policies cost and the peace of mind they offer it is almost a no-brainier.

Secondly, if you plan to take others on your boat, as with it is in aviation you're the owner/operator/pilot in command. You are responsible for the safety of people that are on your boat, the safe operation of that boat, and the boat is maintained to insure it is safe to use in the conditions you want to use it in. No excuses.

As for those wanting to sue race committees etc…. you’re a ****ing scumbag plain and simple. Race committees are not in the business of putting your life in jeopardy and from what I have observed always decide on the side of prudence. The SKIPPER should know the limitations of their sailing skills, their crew's sailing experience, and condition/limitations of their boat. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Understandably **** happens that we have no control over, but sitting there laughing about your boat and showing no concern for the injured crew member would have resulted in a verbal butt whupping should I have been present, but then again, would this have changed the outcome?

I spent a fair amount of time in Indonesia and grew to like the way they do it. You can do anything you want to do, if something happens, it's your deal. Unless of course someone does something to you with bad intent, then the law is swift and often carried out by a mob of villagers. It seemed to work out pretty well.

I strapped on a junky rented BC and regulator and went diving for $10, no papers to sign, liability wavers etc. Gave him $10 and swam out to the reef. Try that in the states. If something happened to me, they probably would have cremated me there and that would have been that.

I rented a kayak, and went down the Ayung river. The guy took my dough and said, "have a good holiday." No chance here.

I rented a surfboard and paddled out at double-overhead Balian rivermouth with nothing more than a wave and a smile.

There has to be a happy medium where people take more responsibility for their own actions, otherwise we start missing out. Getting on a boat can be potentially dangerous.

Talking about suing the PRO for running a race in high wind is shameful. Don't we have the ability to go in if we aren't comfortable in the conditions?

We tried to start a youth sailing program here and found it to be virtually impossible due to the requirements. I think that our overly-litigious society is one reason that the sport of sailing has a hard time gaining a foothold in the mainstream.

I get worried every time a cat gets wrecked in the surf here. One mention of suing the harbor and the whole works could be shut down.

The skipper should have had insurance though.

J

If you bought the pin from Surf City and it broke would I be liable? Potentially. How about if I got the pin from Harken, would they be liable? If you had a lawyer that wanted to go that route, sure. That's why our system is kind of screwed I think.

J

Its pretty clear that anyone can be sued for anything. Heres a nice gem....

Article in Insurance Journal

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a parent can't execute an injury liability waiver for a minor child when the liability release involves participation in a commercial, as opposed to community or nonprofit, activity.

Such releases are more in the interest of the commercial interests requiring them than they are in the best interests of the public or the child who may be injured, the court found.

It ruled that a commercial release was unenforceable against a minor's estate in the case, Scott Corey Kirton vs. Jordan Fields.

Bobby Jones was the primary residential parent for his 14-year old son, Christopher. In 2003, the father took Christopher to Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park to ride his all terrain vehicle (ATV). To gain entry to the facility and be allowed to participate in riding the ATV, Bobby Jones, as Christopher's natural guardian, signed a release and waiver of liability, assumption of risk and indemnity agreement.

While attempting a particular jump, Christopher lost control of his ATV, causing himself to be ejected. Tragically, he hit the ground with the ATV landing on top of him. He got up, walked a short distance, then collapsed and died.

Subsequently, Jordan Fields, representing the estate of Christopher Jones, filed suit for wrongful death against Spencer Kirton, Scott Corey Kirton, Dudley Kirton, and the Kirton Brother Lawn Service, Inc. as owners and operators of Thunder Cross Motor Sports.

Jones admitted that he fully understood that he was waiving the right to sue for the death of Christopher and forever discharging the Kirtons for any and all loss or damage in signing the release.

The Kirtons argued that the claims raised by Fields were barred by the release and waiver executed by Jones on behalf of his son.

The trial court granted the Kirtons' motion for summary judgment on the wrongful death claim, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact because the release executed by Jones on behalf of his minor child, Christopher, barred the claim.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court, finding that that there was no statutory scheme governing the issue of pre-injury releases signed by parents on behalf of minor children and that the courts do not have the authority to "judicially legislate that which necessarily must originate, if it is to be law, with the legislature."

The Kirtons asserted that a parent has a fundamental right to make decisions relating to the care of a minor child, and that right includes executing a pre-injury release on behalf of the minor child.

Fields contended that pre-injury releases are invalid because neither the common law nor the Legislature has given parents the authority to waive these substantive rights of a minor child.

Although there are jurisdictions where pre-injury releases executed by parents on behalf of minor children have been found enforceable, the state's high court noted that the decisions where they have been upheld involved a minor's participation in school-run or community-sponsored activities.

The state Supreme Court decided that the absence of a statute governing parental pre-injury releases demonstrates that the Legislature has not precluded the enforcement of such releases on behalf of a minor child. However, it found that wider public policy concerns cannot allow parents to execute pre-injury releases on behalf of minor children.

The court said there is "injustice" when a parent agrees to waive the tort claims of a minor child and deprive the child of the right to legal relief when the child is injured as a result of another party's negligence. The result benefits the commercial enterprise more than the child, his family or the state:

"When a parent executes such a release and a child is injured, the provider of the activity escapes liability while the parent is left to deal with the financial burden of an injured child. If the parent cannot afford to bear that burden, the parties who suffer are the child, other family members, and the people of the State who will be called on to bear that financial burden. Therefore, when a parent decides to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child, the parent is not protecting the welfare of the child, but is instead protecting the interests of the activity provider. Moreover, a parent's decision in signing a pre-injury release impacts the minor's estate and the property rights personal to the minor. For this reason, the state must assert its role under parens patriae to protect the interests of the minor children."

The court said that business owners owe their patrons a duty of reasonable care and must maintain a safe environment for the activity they provide. If pre-injury releases were permitted for commercial establishments, the incentive to take reasonable precautions to protect the safety of minor children would be removed, according to the court. While a commercial business can take precautions to ensure its child patrons' safety and buy insurance to protect itself, a minor child cannot insure himself or herself against the risks involved in participating in that activity, the court said.

Amen Brother.
I agree 100%. All you litigous folks keep this up and we'll all be out of a hobby.

Wow, that is going to put a huge crimp on kids racing anything; BMX, Motocross, Equestrian Jumping, etc. I wonder if kid's sailing programs are also going to feel the impact.

Is there a distinction between "skipper" and "owner"? I usually crew the boat that I own.

The skipper in this case was an Ahole, no doubt. You can't legislate or sign a waiver against that, they exist in all sports and always will. You can, however, shoot them, just don't get caught...

I am not a legal beagle here but my take on this is if you own the boat, you're on the boat, you're responsible "Owner/Operator"

What if the driver causes a situation that has nothing to do with the condition of the equipment or decision to sail or not sail?

I think that if the owner is on board then they are the skipper/captain. The coast guard will always ask who is the captain when they approach a vessel on the water. If the driver screws up... it's the captain's fault..

I prefer to use the terms helm and sheet rather then skipper and crew to account for a division of responsibilities that you choose to use on your boat.

Read this to get really confused.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=72984

As one of those boats in the '07 Tybee that opted not to sail on that day - I had no problem what so ever with the RC decision to start. People made it out that day, but my team mate and I made the painful decision that our experience was lacking for that one on that day. It was our decision to make - other people were up to the challenge, I would not have deprived them of the opportunity to excel. Ironic, given what happened on the next leg...

On the case at hand, even if the crew had medical insurance it would be likely that her provider would try to recover costs from the insurance on the boat. In the case of no boat insurance they may go after the owner.

By the way, there's something also called the Jones Act (if I remember right) that states that a captain is responsible for the acts of the crew while on shore. This was originally implemented for commercial ships to recoup damages from marauding crews on shore leave. However, I seem to recall that it has been applied in cases pertaining to racing crews in town during races. Yet another thing to consider...

It could be argued that the driver is the skipper regardless of who owns the boat.. if you are drunk and let someone drive you home in your car... and they crash and kill someone... you (the passenger/owner) are not at fault

We had a 15 year old kite boarder get blown into power lines in a squall. He got burned and then fell 25 feet into the street (hit the divider actually). i learned the lawyers want to included everyone in the lawsuit, even the guys who sold the kite to him... even though the equipment was not bad, the kid was sailing on the windward side of powerlines, the parents should not have allowed him to participate is such a dangerous sport, and he went out in adverse conditions, where extreme weather was predicted...

Like the earlier post, I think the skipper is ultimately responsbile for all those on his/her boat, similar to an aircraft pilot.

Accidents happen, stuff breaks, weather turns sour, errors are made. Insurance is there to help provide that peace of mind knowing the skipper can "do the right thing" and take care of anyone or anything injured during prudent operation of the vessel.

As for the PRO responsibility, would you think that an America's Cup team would challenge (or sue) the PRO if they conducted a race beyond the design parameters of the boats in the race? I know there was an s* fight about the minimum windspeed...

The T-500 is more of an adventure race for those with a certain level of competency. Buoy racing, in my mind, is somewhat different in that those with little or no experience are welcome, and it is in that context that I feel the PRO should exercise a bit more discretion with respect to course set-up (not setting the gate width at 1 boatlength, minding the wind/sea conditions, etc.)

Personally, I can't think of any reason I'd sue a PRO, since it's my judgement to participate in the first place. But if I were pro- or semi-pro and this regatta somehow influenced my paycheck, I'd probably have a lot to say if the PRO was making bonehead decisions (like sending a single-handed fleet out in 25 kts, knowing most would break down/crash and the PRO doesn't have enough safety vessels. That would seem negligent on the PRO's part because of the potential for increased chance of accident/injury)
Yeah, and setting a buoy in less than 6" of water is funny to watch, but not funny to drag the boat across!

Oh, and those waivers are nice to have, but most of the time don't really work (look at BKs earlier post - note that was for commercial operations, and not non-profit or community stuff)

Is this your opinion, or are there court cases that back this up? I'm pretty sure that as the owner, you are responsible (can be held liable) when you allow someone to use your car. I'd almost be willing to bet money on it, but again, no two lawsuits end the same way...

Mike