Laws concerning Wake?

[Skip]

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.

[Silver Duck]

Thanks, Evenstar & Skip. I was actually already familiar with RSA 270-D:2 and the 150ft "no Wake" rule, but was wondering if there was anything else.

In the past, I've had people tell me that in N.H. responsibility for one's wake is an absolute under the law in all circumstances, which, I understand is not the case in maritime law. It would appear that, beyond the requirements of 270-D:2, common sense coupled with lawful and prudent operation are the keys.

And, Joe, what exclusions were you referring to? Barring seagulls and spar bouys, the list seems pretty comprehensive to me!

Silver Duck

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

...And, Joe, what exclusions were you referring to? Barring seagulls and spar bouys, the list seems pretty comprehensive to me!

Silver Duck

From the same RSA, here are a couple:


... (b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.

The particular about skiers is very relevant to Winni, section 2 about the Piscataqua obviously does not apply here, but since I boat this area on a weekly basis thought I'd include it for fun.

Makes me think, those that lament the close calls, wakes, loud exhausts and Captain Boneheads should spend a week or two down here on the coastal waters. Guaranteed to make a white knuckle sailor out of many of 'em. Perhaps, after having cut my teeth on these waters, it explains why I am a little more tolerant when up yonder!