Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > Boating
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-03-2010, 09:45 AM   #1
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Skip,

I know you are the unofficial law expert for Winni.com but doesn’t this seem a little unjust?

The great Captain J.J. Hazelwood was charged and rightfuly so even thought he was not at the helm (or even on the bridge) but that was a commercial vessel. With a non-commercial vessel, liability for damage will most often fall upon the operator and the owner but shouldn’t adherence to the laws of operation be the sole responsibility of the person behind the wheel?

I don’t doubt it is the law but it seems a little silly.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 09:55 AM   #2
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Post Application is very limited...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
Skip,

I know you are the unofficial law expert for Winni.com but doesn’t this seem a little unjust?

The great Captain J.J. Hazelwood was charged and rightfuly so even thought he was not at the helm (or even on the bridge) but that was a commercial vessel. With a non-commercial vessel, liability for damage will most often fall upon the operator and the owner but shouldn’t adherence to the laws of operation be the sole responsibility of the person behind the wheel?

I don’t doubt it is the law but it seems a little silly.
Not unjust or silly at all, in my humble opinion.

The intent of the legislation is to only pursue this charge when it can be proven that the person at the wheel could not have possibly been able to control the vessel without command by another party.

If the person at the helm was a competent operator, regardless if a third party was acting as a captain, then this law does not apply. That is why it is so rare to see charges for pleasure boat operation under these regulations.

Commercial operation, as you cite, falls under a different subsection of the Coast Guard CFR.

In this case it appears that the intoxicated Captain clearly indicated to investigating authorities that even though his wafe was operarting he had full command of the boat. He, or she, also had to relate that she was incompetent to operate the vessel on her own. Looks like the booze, bravado or a combination of both got the best of him. In this limited circumstance I agree with the authorities charging him with BWI.

Additionally we are only talking about the actual BWI offense. Civilly the rules change, and both individuals along with whoever the boat owner my be, are liable for damages, recovery and repair. The burden of proof and responsibility are much less on that side of the Courthouse!
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
Kracken (09-03-2010)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.57263 seconds