Liability of Adrift Vessel

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Snore

Deleted..... Topic not worthy of further discussion.

I find it quite amazing and rude that the OP decided to leave his own discussion after a single page. Makes me think he was trolling.

[Pelagic]

Nah......be kind RC......just some sleep apnea problems

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Nah......be kind RC......just some sleep apnea problems

well, I'll try not to wake him up whilst he's snoring then.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I find it quite amazing and rude that the OP decided to leave his own discussion after a single page. Makes me think he was trolling.

No I am not trolling. And am upset that someone would make that half-cocked analysts.

But after 5 people called me silly (that IS rude skippy!) I realized I was having a battle of wits with under armed people. So I folded my hand and let them wizards of CF have at it. Just not worth it. But I am not a friggn troll!

It was not until Rustic Charms post that someone gave a well reasoned holistic view of the issue.

Odds are this post will be edited or deleted as it does not conform to CF "be nice policy".

But hey, I am old enough and still too mean to take nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone- please forgive autocorrect errors.

[Blue Crab]

"Whenever...it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off- then, I account it high time to get to sea..." Ishmael

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Snore

No I am not trolling. And am upset that someone would make that half-cocked analysts.

But after 5 people called me silly (that IS rude skippy!) I realized I was having a battle of wits with under armed people. So I folded my hand and let them wizards of CF have at it. Just not worth it. But I am not a friggn troll!

It was not until Rustic Charms post that someone gave a well reasoned holistic view of the issue.

Odds are this post will be edited or deleted as it does not conform to CF "be nice policy".

But hey, I am old enough and still too mean to take nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone- please forgive autocorrect errors.

It's cool Young fella, Snore, I was just messing with ya. I know you weren't trolling (though I guess I was a bit )

Happy new year.

[captain58sailin]

Try running through the oil fields in Nigeria at night, where all the dugout canoes have is a bic lighter to flick as you get near them, and because they are dugout canoes they don't show up on radar very well. Hit one of them and you had best leave the country in a hurry.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

A couple have answered the OP, and whilst I don't know a lot about civil law, I'll throw in that I would think a court would only determine against the drifting boat owner if it could determine culpability. This means the owner of the drifting vessel would have to be found in Law to have done something 'or' failed to do something that could have been avoided. And of course, I would take a guess that both the culpable action as well as the resulting action leading to the civil action would need to occur in the same country for practical reasons.

In the case of a vessel not moored sufficiently, then it's possible that culpability could be found against the owner. Given the owner failed to adequately secure the vessel in some way.

In the case of the vessel abandoned following a rescue, then I would think that culpability wouldn't be able to be found at all.

Of course, when an incident happens in international waters the initial consultation with a solicitor who can deal with such an occurrence will quickly become impractical and even with a total loss, it simply wouldn't be worth an action.

Fundamentally I agree, however from a civil damages point of view, even after being rescued there ids likely to be at least an apportionment of damages to the vessel owner.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Factor

Fundamentally I agree, however from a civil damages point of view, even after being rescued there ids likely to be at least an apportionment of damages to the vessel owner.

I'm not sure I understand after the rescue who is the vessel owner other than those rescued?