Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jrc
I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't any property damage or personal injury cause by wake be a civil matter? As such, couldn't you seek redress in civil court? Could you prove who caused the damage to the satisfaction of the court? Can you recover enough to make it worth your time and lawyers fees? Or maybe just go to small claims.
Again I'm not a lawyer, but for the MP to get involved wouldn't the wake makers have to be commiting a crime? If they violate the 150' rule or a No Wake area it's a crime (well a violation). Unless they are intentionally making a wake to cause damage, I don't think the fact it causes damage is criminal.
BTW did I mention I'm not a lawyer.
|
You applied common sense to the equation, and you actually came up with a pretty good "lawyer like" answer.
Case in point, an article in this month's Seaworthy (publication of BoatUS Marine Insurance). In a nutshell, a captain parked his 45 footer off of an island near a known shipping lane. Along came a large ship at about 15 knots, throwing a deepwater 4 foot wake. As the wake approached the shallow water the skipper was anchored in, it grew rapidly and swamped the back of his boat.
The court's ruling? The ship was
not liable for the damages since the ship had a proper lookout and was travelling at a reasonable speed.
Could this apply to the wakes created by the Mount or the Sophie? Usually each year someone comments on those two vessels and the wakes they produce. I would surmise by this ruling that a reasonable conclusion would be that since these vessels travel known routes on a regular basis, that other boats must be prudent in their approaches or choices of anchorages.
Yes, the MP under limited conditions can cite offenders if they can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that criminal intent took place to cause the intended wake and its inherent damage. But given the circumstances as so well put by Joe Kerr, you can see why those statutes are rarely applied and your chances in Civil Court, while somewhat better, are slim indeed.