"Mount" drowning linked to alcohol

[Skip]

The NHMP released its report on the October 28,2006 drowning that occured when an individual fell from a cruise on the Mount Washington. The entire story can be read HERE at the on-line edition of the Citizen.

[codeman671]

"Although a number of fellow partygoers told investigators they thought the couple was intoxicated, Karen Sylvestre said she and her husband had not been drinking before boarding the ship and eating dinner."

"In December 2007, Mrs. Sylvestre filed a civil suit as the administrator of her husband's estate, claiming the Winnipesaukee Flagship Company had a duty to exercise care in the maintenance and operation of the ship and that the corporation had a duty "not to serve alcoholic beverages to an already intoxicated person."

Seems rather odd to me that she would file a suit claiming that the served alcohol to an already intoxicated person when she also claims that they had not been drinking prior to the cruise. With the length of the cruise and the time it takes for the effects to set in, does it make sense that everything served to him put him on the boat put him that far over or was he already well on his way to being drunk? Was it the mixture with the prescription meds that did it? If he had been drinking before the cruise and they served him 4, he may or may not have been visibly drunk. Having only consumed on the boat, having 4 drinks he may not have appeared drunk at all which is why he would receive 4 drinks. Also, who is to say that they were all served by the same bartender? An old trick from the days of being 21 was when in a club to get your drinks from different bartenders so they could not keep track of how many you had. I doubt highly that the staff on the Mount would purposely serve someone that wasted. Most bartenders tend to take their roles seriously and I am sure the Mount would have some set limitations.

I am sure there are enough people that indulge in a cocktail now and then on the forum. I can personally say that after 4 drinks, especially the little puny ones they usually serve, it is quite possible unless you are really a lightweight not to appear intoxicated.

Being that his wife had somewhat of a medical background, I would think that common sense would kick in at some point and say something to him about not drinking at all while taking 2 prescription meds with clear instructions not to take with alcohol.

My point is that in this case, as many others on the forum lately there has to be some level of personal responsibility involved. Drinking vodka while on prescription meds is stupid and potentially deadly (in this case, although for a different reason it was). Too many litigation-happy people and greedy lawyers to chase it...

[Coastal Laker]

After reading this article a couple of things come to mind for me. I am first sympathetic for a bereaved family who has lost a love one. Secondly I cringe at yet another example of what a highly litigious society we are: looking to place blame on someone else for serving too much of something that shouldn't have been consumed in the first place. Thirdly, as a person deeply ingrained in this culture, I'm sure if I lost my husband, I'd want someone to "pay" too. Perhaps that will help alleviate some of the pain. It's a sad story.

[Orion]

"She recalled drinking four glasses of white wine and that her husband drank four vodkas on the rocks."

.....and she knew her husband was on prescription meds.

.....and SHE is suing the ship owners?!!!


I agree with Coastal Laker, but hopefully the judges will judge appropriately. Seems like with fine and partial loss of liquor license, they have already not done so.

Some day nobody will be able to afford to serve liquor or we'll have to have breathalizers at the bar that you have to blow into before you order another drink.

[nightrider]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where someone held a gun to his head and made him consume those drinks........

[John A. Birdsall]

seems to me that the man should be responsible for his own action and reaction. Did he actually get the drinks himself? Did someone get them for him? But still if he is on medication that says do not mix with achol what is his reasoning. We will never know. and as others have said too much litigation is going on, somewhere common sense has to prevail as to who can sue and for what.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Orion

"She recalled drinking four glasses of white wine and that her husband drank four vodkas on the rocks."

.....and she knew her husband was on prescription meds.

.....and SHE is suing the ship owners?!!!


I agree with Coastal Laker, but hopefully the judges will judge appropriately. Seems like with fine and partial loss of liquor license, they have already not done so.

Some day nobody will be able to afford to serve liquor or we'll have to have breathalizers at the bar that you have to blow into before you order another drink.

Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the bartender to ask what type of medication if any, that a person might be taking and then determine if they should be consuming alcohol? Ok, I was kidding.

[hazelnut]

Here we go down that slippery slope.... I guess personal responsibility for ones actions isn't the answer. Yeah let's just sue, sue, sue. We should all be required to live in bubbles with pacifiers in our mouths. Lord knows the New Hampshire liquor laws are pretty strict now you'll be required to to a full blown field sobriety test to get a drink. Give me a break.

Unfortunately this tragedy is turning into a shameful suit in my opinion. Maybe that seems harsh to some but as people alluded to already in this thread she knew he was on meds and let him drink vodka rocks? Maybe the mans family should sue the wife????? She as a medical professional should be held accountable for her actions allowing her husband to consume vodka while on a prescription that warned against alcohol use.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Maybe the mans family should sue the wife????? She as a medical professional should be held accountable for her actions allowing her husband to consume vodka while on a prescription that warned against alcohol use.

You know, in some strange, twisted way that makes more sense the suing the Mount. I hate to say it, but is anyone surprised by this?

[Rose]

While I agree that this society is far too litigious and people should take responsibility for their actions, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. For me, one item in the article that really caught my attention was the fact that the captain at the helm was unfamiliar with a vital piece of safety equipment, namely the MOB button. If I were the plaintiff's attorney, I would hammer that little fact home hard. Why would you put someone who is unfamiliar with a piece of safety equipment that he will be responsible for at the helm on a nighttime cruise in very rough weather?

I feel badly for everyone involved.

[PennyPenny]

No matter how I view it, it is about $money one way or the other. The bartenders want their job and tips as well as the Mount wanting to make money and the widow wants $money for her loss. Having said that, I hope if I was chosen for the jury, I could listen to both sides before blaming one or another if any. It will be interesting to watch this play out in the courts. Unfortunately, the family is left to pick up the pieces one way or another.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rose

While I agree that this society is far too litigious and people should take responsibility for their actions, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. For me, one item in the article that really caught my attention was the fact that the captain at the helm was unfamiliar with a vital piece of safety equipment, namely the MOB button. If I were the plaintiff's attorney, I would hammer that little fact home hard. Why would you put someone who is unfamiliar with a piece of safety equipment that he will be responsible for at the helm on a nighttime cruise in very rough weather?

I feel badly for everyone involved.

Rose, I saw this info in the paper about the MOB button as well. They also stated that it was the Mount's senior captain that was having trouble with the MOB device. One would think that the proper operation of this device would be checked by Marine Patrol during the Mount's shakedown cruise?

Aside from this, I still think the poor guy was irresponsible - drinking with medication.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Rose

While I agree that this society is far too litigious and people should take responsibility for their actions, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. For me, one item in the article that really caught my attention was the fact that the captain at the helm was unfamiliar with a vital piece of safety equipment, namely the MOB button. If I were the plaintiff's attorney, I would hammer that little fact home hard. Why would you put someone who is unfamiliar with a piece of safety equipment that he will be responsible for at the helm on a nighttime cruise in very rough weather?

I feel badly for everyone involved.

Although unfamiliar with that piece of electronic equipment I do not believe that puts him in violation of any law. A navigation system is not a required piece of gear according to the CG regulations. A VHF and/or Radiotelephone is. An attorney could bring it up and try to make it look like that made them negligent in not finding him however any good defense attorney would be able to stifle it.

The crew did throw a lighted emergency marker within 45 seconds of him going overboard, I think that is a pretty good response time. Chances are with Mr. Sylvestre's condition and the water conditions that night he probably went down immediately.

[fatlazyless]

Today's Union Leader has a follow up story about the drowning on Halloween, 2006. The New Hampshire Liquor Commission yesterday issued a $1500. fine against the cruise ship for serving liquor to an already intoxicated person. In addition to the fine, the adult beverage crew is required to undergo a training program on correct procedures for serving adult beverages to adults who are already drunk. The boat will lose its' adult beverage license for a specified time period, as well.

One has to assume this will be an important arguing point in the pending civil suit of the estate of the deceased verses the big white cruise boat.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Put me on that Manchester jury, and he'll go from driv'n a new Mercedes Benz to be driv'n a 1993 Geo Tracker with a leaky soft-top!

Sorry, but it won't be you or any of the others on this board.

It will be "city folk," presumably a bit more liberal, a bit more urbane.

It should not be dismissed by summary judgment, and should go to the jury.

What they'll do with it, nobody knows: always a crapshoot.

But the Mount's insurance company is looking at substantial exposure, no doubt about it.

The article I read did not say what his BA level was; I suspect it was way over the limit, in order for the findings of overserving to be accepted by the Mount's owners (why wouldn't they fight, and appeal? It will be used against them in the civil suit).

Dressed in torn jeans and a tie-dyed T-shirt at a costume party, the "hippie" deceased endured a long, strange trip (over the rail) indeed.

Should be interesting to see how this suit develops.

I bet the Mount's insurance company settles.

Ka-ching!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...One has to assume this will be an important arguing point in the pending civil suit of the estate of the deceased verses the big white cruise boat.

Put me on that Manchester jury, and he'll go from driv'n a new Mercedes Benz to be driv'n a 1993 Geo Tracker with a leaky soft-top!...

Whoa, whoa, whoa….lets back the bus back up a little bit before we run anyone else over with it!

The Mount corporation reached a settlement on a charge of serving an intoxicated individual. They did not admit to and enough evidence has not been presented to us yet to show that they were the entity that caused the individual’s intoxication. In other words, there remains the possibility that the individual arrived on board in an already intoxicated state. We will not know the result of that possibility until & unless a court case is held.

Additionally, while the autopsy could not provide the blood alcohol content of the deceased at the time of the accident, it did confirm the presence of at least two prescription medications that should not have been mixed with alcohol.

Last time I rode the Mount, I didn’t notice any pharmacies aboard. Therefore in the civil portion of the lawsuit a substantial argument can be made that medication and alcohol could have made it extremely difficult for personnel aboard the Mount to effectively judge impairment.
The fact that the Liquor Commission negotiated a plea, and a fairly minor one at that given the consequences, suggests to me that during the criminal investigation great weight and responsibility for this tragedy was placed squarely upon the victim’s own actions.

Finally, I am not sure how the recurring comment about who drives what for a car is germane to this suit. I hope we don’t go down that road again….

[Weirs guy]

There you go again Skip, trying to impose logic on FLL.

[Cobalt]

Most agree that we are responsible for our actions, and unfortunately, we sometimes pay a very high price for mistakes. I am not in a position to ascertain fault, but there is an issue that was mentioned in the article regarding the weather conditons.

I was standing by my dock the night of the accident and saw the Mount heading into the Broads. It was extremely windy accompanied by very high waves. It was one of the worst nights for boating in my opinion. My wife questioned whether even the Mount should be out on this night. At the time, I tought the displacement and size of the Mount could handle it.

I feel that a fair number who attend a costume party on the Mount are looking for a fun time, and like it or not, drinking or whatever become part of the celebration. I wonder what effect, if any, the wind and waves had on the stability of the Mount, and if a rolling and pitching deck contributed to this accident? If so, the wisdom of taking the Mount out on this night may be in question.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Most agree that we are responsible for our actions, and unfortunately, we sometimes pay a very high price for mistakes. I am not in a position to ascertain fault, but there is an issue that was mentioned in the article regarding the weather conditons.

I was standing by my dock the night of the accident and saw the Mount heading into the Broads. It was extremely windy accompanied by very high waves. It was one of the worst nights for boating in my opinion. My wife questioned whether even the Mount should be out on this night. At the time, I tought the displacement and size of the Mount could handle it.

You thought correctly.

Take a ride on the Mount when the wind is from the NW about 25 - 30 mph and you will realize the Mount is a stabile platform.

Leave your wife home. She will want a bigger boat when she realizes the advantage of size in rough conditions, should you take her along for the ride.

[CanisLupusArctos]

The Black Cat Island weather for October 28, 2006 was dominated by heavy rain but the overcast gave way to breaks during the evening. Fog and thunder were both recorded during the day.

There was 1.78 inches of rain that day, which tapered off during the evening.

The day's high was 53 and the low was 38.

Winds were from the east all day and evening, and averaged 30 mph with a gust to 45 mph. The weather system passed after midnight and winds shifted to west, gusting to 50 mph the next day, which brought snow showers.

The ship had successfully navigated worse, only a week earlier.

On the 20th, 1.82 inches of rain fell with fog, thunder, and winds averaging 30 mph from the southeast during the early evening. The winds shifted to northwest (while maintaining their speed) and increased, gusting to 50 mph. This speed-maintained rapid wind shift resulted in lots of tree damage around the area and a very churned-up lake. Temperatures dropped rapidly from the 50s down to 35 and the rain ended as snow (the season's first.) The ship went by shortly after power went out, just as the snow was beginning. All around the lake I could see green-blue flashes in the night sky from power transformers blowing up.

Northwest and Southeast are the two biggest wave-producing wind directions on the lake because of the lake's NW-SE geographic alignment. Northwest winds produce the biggest waves in The Broads, because that direction provides the greatest unobstructed run prior to reaching The Broads. Therefore I think the 20th was much worse, and so did the power lines. On the 28th the lights stayed on.

On Oct. 28, 2006, winds were straight E-W, although any of us boaters know that local wind & wave effects are possible and they aren't usually predictable. In that regard the state's biggest lake is similar to its biggest mountain.

[hockeypuck]

I agree that personal responsibility comes into play here with this most unfortunate event. It appears that there is plenty of blame and or neglect to go around, and Murphy's Law reared it's ugly head. Was it an accident or just a merging of many decisions and events, none of which by itself were deadly but taken in a group proved to be.
I read an article about the events of that night and it did mention that the railing was 37 inches high at the point where he went over. I tend to think that at 37 inches the rail would hit an adult male below their center of gravity and it wouldn't take much to go overboard, especially given the other circumstances of wind, waves and alcohol.

[ITD]

There is one thing that truly troubles me about this whole incident. From the article:

"Welch explained that the MOB "never took" and that he pressed it once but needed to press it more to get though some menu options he didn't know existed. Welch told Ouellette he wasn't that familiar with that piece of electronic equipment and as a result, there was never a man overboard point logged"

I would expect that man overboard drills would be routine on the Mount. Procedures should be well defined and all crew with a task. Something as basic as how the MOB feature works should be second nature to the captain and anyone else who regularly spends time in the wheel house. It sounds to me like this was the first time that captain had pushed that button, and if it wasn't, that he didn't understand how to use the function. I would also hope that the crew would be trained to jump to action with set tasks, such as one person locates the man overboard, another throws a life ring, someone else prepares to recover. I think the company may have some liability here, not from serving alcohol, but from being improperly prepared for what should be a routine emergency.

The witnesses could have helped (and maybe they did) by tossing a life ring immediately and looking and pointing to the spot where the victim landed. If somebody had just focussed on the spot where this guy went in and kept pointing to it they may have been able to retrieve him.

I don't think the family should collect a penny because the company served this guy, I think that is all on him and his wife, but I hope the Mount is better prepared if someone falls overboard in the future.

[secondcurve]

ITD:

While I agree that the captain should be familiar with the MOB function, I do not believe it would have made a bit of difference in this case. When considering the impact of the non-functioning MOB equipment (due to user error, apparently), the 4 foot swells present that evening, the darkness and the mount's speed of probably 15 knots must also be taken into account. These elements combined with frigid water and an intoxicated patron also under the influence of drugs and it is probable that he only lasted a few seconds before going under. Also, there was likely a delay of up to a few minutes before the stunned patrons who witnessed the accident were able to alert the captain and even if he had been instantaneously alerted of the accident and the MOB reading had been executed, it would have taken him some time to have been able to turn the ship around in a relatively narrow section of the lake (relative to the size of ship). As a result, in my opinion, the lack of a proper MOB reading likely was not a factor in this very unfortunate accident.

[fatlazyless]

Today's Citizen has a news article reporting that the NH Liquor Commission has suspended the Mount's license for seven days during 2008 Bike Week in response to the Halloween 2006 drowning.

Isn't that the slowest week of the whole season for the Mount as it stays tied to its Weirs' dock all that week, and sees very few customers onboard during Motorcycle Week? Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's what I've heard?

[Water Camper]

FLL;

I will have to disagree with you with regard to the Mount not being busy during Motorcycle Week. I have visited the Mount during that week and it has been very busy, usually several live bands, many people. I'm sure they will loose a fair amount of income. My opinion !

Bill

[Resident 2B]

I believe this is a huge week for the Mount. Plenty of business from the biker crowd and no fuel cost since it is aside the pier all week. This is a big hit in my opinion.

R2B

[Woodsy]

I believe they have an appeals process... I doubt this is all over yet. If the suspension does stick, I wonder if the Mount will be running tours of the lake...

Woodsy

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I believe they have an appeals process... I doubt this is all over yet. If the suspension does stick, I wonder if the Mount will be running tours of the lake...

Woodsy

Interesting thought....

R2B

[Weirs guy]

I wonder if they'd just shut down for the week and only run the shuttle boats? A very harsh punishment, I hope it fits their level of responsibility in this matter.

[rander7823]

Is it possible for someone to rent the Mount then get a temporary liquor license? Thus the corporation that owns the Mount won't actually be selling the alcohol.

[Argie's Wife]

No, because of liability issues. No insurance company would touch them if they tried something like that - forgetit!

[mcdude]

From the Laconia Citizen

'Mount' death suit settled


Friday, May 29, 2009
CONCORD — A wrongful death suit filed by the widow of a Hooksett man who allegedly drowned in Lake Winnipesaukee after falling overboard from the MS Mount Washington has been settled out of court. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Karen M. Sylvestre had filed suit in Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord, arguing that the owners and employees of the Winnipesaukee Flagship Company were negligent in causing the death of her husband, James Nelson Sylvestre, 45, a native of Franklin.

Sylvestre was attending a Halloween costume party aboard The Mount on Oct. 28, 2006, when he went overboard. A witness ran to the wheelhouse to tell the captain who stopped the ship, turned it around and began search-and-rescue operations.

Marine Patrol officers joined N.H. Fish and Game officials and rescue boats from Laconia, Alton, and Center Harbor in the search for Sylvestre shortly after he fell in, though recovery efforts had to be postponed at 11 a.m. the next morning due to high winds before being resumed.

An extensive, two-day search followed with divers, boats, and a sonar device looking over a one-mile stretch of Lake Winnipesaukee between Welch and Rattlesnake islands in water depths of up to 100 feet.

After two days of looking through rough waters, the search was discontinued and Sylvestre was presumed drowned.

His body was discovered by a fisherman on Sept. 21, 2007, floating about 1.5 miles offshore between Diamond and Welch islands about 7:15 a.m. The body was taken to the N.H. Medical Examiner's Office in Concord for an autopsy and Sylvestre was positively identified using dental records.

The suit filed by Attorney Vincent Wenners Jr. of Manchester charged that the defendant and its employees "failed in their duty" to prevent Sylvestre from falling overboard, operating the ship in such a manner as to cause him to fall and then failing to rescue him after he went into the water.

In the months leading up to the suit's settlement, the defense argued that there was comparable negligence as the deceased had been taking drugs for depression and anxiety that should not be combined with alcohol. A medical expert hired by the defense stated that, because of his high cholesterol and high blood pressure, coupled with being overweight and other lifestyle issues, Sylvestre could have suffered a stroke and fallen overboard and that he most likely suffered a heart attack as a result of the cold water once he fell in.

Meanwhile the plaintiffs argued that the Flagship Company had a record of serving intoxicated persons, stating the company had been cited by the Liquor Commission in 1976, 1986 and again in 1990.

Witnesses have said the Sylvestre was leaning over the ship's railing and appeared to be vomiting when he fell into the lake. The suit claimed that the defendant and its employees had a duty not to serve alcohol to an already-intoxicated person and "recklessly served" alcohol beverages to the decedent.

The defense had also argued that, although blood alcohol testing on Sylvestre's body showed a high level, bacteria and other factors related to decomposition could be responsible for the elevated readings.

Depositions prior to trial showed that Sylvestre had had four vodka drinks during the four-hour cruise.

Mrs. Sylvestre as executive of her late husband's estate alleged loss of consortium and loss of companionship and sought unspecified monetary damages.

[fatlazyless]

It took from halloween till September, about eleven months, for the drowned guy's body to surface and be found.

Somewhere I read, probably in this forum, that his wife would show up every day and look through binoculars out across the the water for like an hour from different shoreline spots, looking for him. Talk about devotion!

[kara1]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Seems rather odd to me that she would file a suit claiming that the served alcohol to an already intoxicated person when she also claims that they had not been drinking prior to the cruise. With the length of the cruise and the time it takes for the effects to set in, does it make sense that everything served to him put him on the boat put him that far over or was he already well on his way to being drunk? Was it the mixture with the prescription meds that did it? If he had been drinking before the cruise and they served him 4, he may or may not have been visibly drunk. Having only consumed on the boat, having 4 drinks he may not have appeared drunk at all which is why he would receive 4 drinks. Also, who is to say that they were all served by the same bartender? An old trick from the days of being 21 was when in a club to get your drinks from different bartenders so they could not keep track of how many you had. I doubt highly that the staff on the Mount would purposely serve someone that wasted. Most bartenders tend to take their roles seriously and I am sure the Mount would have some set limitations.

I am sure there are enough people that indulge in a cocktail now and then on the forum. I can personally say that after 4 drinks, especially the little puny ones they usually serve, it is quite possible unless you are really a lightweight not to appear intoxicated.

Being that his wife had somewhat of a medical background, I would think that common sense would kick in at some point and say something to him about not drinking at all while taking 2 prescription meds with clear instructions not to take with alcohol.

My point is that in this case, as many others on the forum lately there has to be some level of personal responsibility involved. Drinking vodka while on prescription meds is stupid and potentially deadly (in this case, although for a different reason it was). Too many litigation-happy people and greedy lawyers to chase it...

My point is that in this case, as many others on the forum lately there has to be some level of personal responsibility involved. agreed!!