An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Basicallly, if you hit something, you are at fault. The vessel operator is charged with avoiding all collisions, regardless of the nature or size of the object that might be hit. You don't see any distinctions among lit or unlit, swimmers or logs, big or little vessels. You are charged with avoiding collisions. Period. This is not rocket science; it's real simple.

So, if I run around with no lights on, I am only risking a ticket. Nothing else. I am not risking any liability of any accident, because it is THEIR responsibility to see me, even if I have no lights on. Is that what you are saying?

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Here are some of the reports used by defense counsel.

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/dinius-report.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/k...ing-Report.pdf

I'm really glad to see this come out. Justice grinds slowly, especially when one of their own is involved. But at least in this case it looks like justice may finally be done.

Hopefully Dinius will still have a civil case against the various parties involved in the attempted cover-up for his pain and suffering.

[Kai Nui]

I wonder how many tickets Perdock issued over the years, to speeders who told him they always drove that fast on that road because there was nothing out there.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

......
Basicallly, if you hit something, you are at fault. The vessel operator is charged with avoiding all collisions, regardless of the nature or size of the object that might be hit. You don't see any distinctions among lit or unlit, swimmers or logs, big or little vessels. You are charged with avoiding collisions. Period. This is not rocket science; it's real simple.

And if there is a risk that other boaters are out there without their lights on, then that risk is deemed to exist and you are responsible for avoiding collision with those unlit vessels too. You don't get a free pass to run over people just because their lights are not on. You are not permitted to blissfully assume that everybody else is playing by the rules and has their lights on.

Further, inflatable toys and such are not watercraft and therefore are not required to be lit. Thus, if there is a risk that someone is out there at night on an inflatable toy, say fly fishing from an innertube, then you must drive in a fashion that allows to you avoid collision with the inflatable toy. Period. It's REAL simple.

Hiracer,
I am not sure it is real simple. I agree which the main thrust of your post but I don't interupt the rules you have quoted as to be all encompassing as you seem to in relation to ALL collisions.

I read them as having to avoid collisions that in the ordinary practice of seaman (or in the special circumstances of the case), one would expect to have to avoid. Of course a seaman could expect unlit vessels, navigation hazards and other objects that are common to the area and therefore would be required to avoid them. However I can't see how this would apply to objects that can't be seen, are not normal hazards to ordinary practice of seaman and are not common to the area.

For instance, if one hit a semi-submerged log at night in an area that had no history of such objects, I would expect this not to be deemed as avoidable. Of course, it semi-submerged logs are common in a particular area, then the rules apply.

Likewise for say just submerged containers, unchartered rocks (in an area that is well charted), and maybe a vessel that only just sunk, is unmarked and is sitting on the bottom with only a foot of water over its superstructure. Another example may be an old WW2 mine that floats into a harbour (which has no history of mines) at night. These are things that just aren't in the ordinary practice of seaman and are not special to a case.

As for inflatable toys etc that are not watercraft, then I don't see how a seaman could expect such objects to be on the water. By their very definition as "not watercraft", they would not be expected to be on the water.

That said, I certainly agree the speedboat in this case appears to be culpable.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by dacust

So, if I run around with no lights on, I am only risking a ticket. Nothing else. I am not risking any liability of any accident, because it is THEIR responsibility to see me, even if I have no lights on. Is that what you are saying?

No. You are putting words in my mouth. If you read what I said, I never said anything about the liability of the vessel that is hit. That silence doesn't mean, however, that I'm claiming it has no liability.

In fact, the point being made is that the liability of each vessel is independent of the other. That the one vessel may have violated navigational rules is no excuse for the other vessel to also violate navigational rules.

And where both vessels have violated rules, you get into the whole arena of which violation was the proximate cause of the acccident. As I have repeatedlysaid before, when this case is over it will serve to show that, even if the sailboat did not have its nav lights on, that failure would not have been a proximate cause of the accident. Here, the motorboat was going so fast that the driver was unable to see the lights in time for evasive action, thereby proving my point. The proximate cause was the criminal reckless speed of the motor boat.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Hiracer,
I am not sure it is real simple. I agree which the main thrust of your post but I don't interupt the rules you have quoted as to be all encompassing as you seem to in relation to ALL collisions.

I agree with you.

I agree that there are remote circumstances where, say in a single vessel collision, the captain would not be at fault. But I intentionally ignored them to emphasize a point.

The point being that in general if you hit something you have in all likelihood violated at least one navigational rule.

It is a rare case indeed where a captain hits something and he is not at fault. The whole point of navigational rules is to avoid collisions.

But I agree there are rare circumstances where even the exercise of prudence and good judgment, and adherence to the rules cannot avoid a collision. I do think, however, that this line of argument has no application to this case.

At all.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Likewise for say just submerged containers, unchartered rocks (in an area that is well charted), and maybe a vessel that only just sunk, is unmarked and is sitting on the bottom with only a foot of water over its superstructure. Another example may be an old WW2 mine that floats into a harbour (which has no history of mines) at night. These are things that just aren't in the ordinary practice of seaman and are not special to a case.

I disagree here. The whole point of requiring a lookout is because the unexpected is to be expected. The rules require you to look out for unexpected hazards. That's precisely why you cannot rely solely on charts.

Like I said earlier, the rules do not require you to avoid hitting only the easy to avoid objects. You are required to avoid hitting all objects and vessels where it is possible through reasonable seamanship to avoid hitting them.

Nowhere in the rules is there a distinction between expected and unexpected hazards. If it cannot be seen, that one thing. If it can be seen but is unexpected, that is another thing.

[imagine2frolic]

A couple of things I have wondered. Was Perdock having a drink at this party? Has anyone said yes, or no to this question. Does Perdock use his badge in an intimidating way that would keep people from coming forward. What is with his personality?

Second thing I am wondering is about his eyesight. Was he wearing glasses to keep his eyes from watering? Does he need corrective vision glasses at his age? A lot of guys here in Florida drive their boats, and motorcycles at night with sunglasses. I don't get it, but they think they look cool.

Just like every facet of life. There are good, and bad people. Someone remarked at the beginning of the thread that he is most likely a good person. He was there for his child's birthday party. That doesn't make him a good person. Also that we have to give the people in blue the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that is true. There is the WALL, and it is called the code of blue I think. That is where every cop covers the next, so that some day they will cover you. We all make mistakes.

It just seems that small pieces of the puzzle that were once hidden are coming to light. They surely do indicate a coverup, and a whole lot of bad judgement. This has nothing to do with it being a powerboat. It simply has to do with what is right, and what is not right. In reading this thread over a couple of days I smell something that's just a little fishy

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

No. You are putting words in my mouth. If you read what I said, I never said anything about the liability of the vessel that is hit. That silence doesn't mean, however, that I'm claiming it has no liability.

In fact, the point being made is that the liability of each vessel is independent of the other. That the one vessel may have violated navigational rules is no excuse for the other vessel to also violate navigational rules.

And where both vessels have violated rules, you get into the whole arena of which violation was the proximate cause of the acccident. As I have repeatedlysaid before, when this case is over it will serve to show that, even if the sailboat did not have its nav lights on, that failure would not have been a proximate cause of the accident. Here, the motorboat was going so fast that the driver was unable to see the lights in time for evasive action, thereby proving my point. The proximate cause was the criminal reckless speed of the motor boat.

Yes, I was putting words in your mouth. But actually I was extrapolating from the information you are providing. You have said that anytime someone someone hits something, they are wrong. You have been stating it as an absolute. I am simplying saying that I think that is an oversimplification.

Here is an example of what you have been saying:

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Basicallly, if you hit something, you are at fault. The vessel operator is charged with avoiding all collisions, regardless of the nature or size of the object that might be hit. You don't see any distinctions among lit or unlit, swimmers or logs, big or little vessels. You are charged with avoiding collisions. Period. This is not rocket science; it's real simple.

Originally Posted by Hiracer

I agree with you.

I agree that there are remote circumstances where, say in a single vessel collision, the captain would not be at fault. But I intentionally ignored them to emphasize a point.

The point being that in general if you hit something you have in all likelihood violated at least one navigational rule.

It is a rare case indeed where a captain hits something and he is not at fault. The whole point of navigational rules is to avoid collisions.

But I agree there are rare circumstances where even the exercise of prudence and good judgment, and adherence to the rules cannot avoid a collision. I do think, however, that this line of argument has no application to this case.

At all.

Originally Posted by Hiracer

I disagree here. The whole point of requiring a lookout is because the unexpected is to be expected. The rules require you to look out for unexpected hazards. That's precisely why you cannot rely solely on charts.

Like I said earlier, the rules do not require you to avoid hitting only the easy to avoid objects. You are required to avoid hitting all objects and vessels where it is possible through reasonable seamanship to avoid hitting them.

Nowhere in the rules is there a distinction between expected and unexpected hazards. If it can be seen, that one thing. If it can be seen but is unexpected, that is another thing.

In the last posts you seem to get what I have been trying (obviously ineffectually) to say all along. You are using a few more qualifiers. Just because someone hits something going slower than themselves doesn't mean they are at fault. Where we may still differ is that I think that may apply to an unlit vessel as well.

BTW: Just to make sure you know my reactions, you have some great posts and good reasoning. I just have dissagreed with the degree to which you apply a very small part of it. The rest I totally agree with.

-dan

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

A couple of things I have wondered. Was Perdock having a drink at this party? Has anyone said yes, or no to this question. Does Perdock use his badge in an intimidating way that would keep people from coming forward. What is with his personality?

Second thing I am wondering is about his eyesight. Was he wearing glasses to keep his eyes from watering? Does he need corrective vision glasses at his age? A lot of guys here in Florida drive their boats, and motorcycles at night with sunglasses. I don't get it, but they think they look cool.

Just like every facet of life. There are good, and bad people. Someone remarked at the beginning of the thread that he is most likely a good person. He was there for his child's birthday party. That doesn't make him a good person. Also that we have to give the people in blue the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that is true. There is the WALL, and it is called the code of blue I think. That is where every cop covers the next, so that some day they will cover you. We all make mistakes.

It just seems that small pieces of the puzzle that were once hidden are coming to light. They surely do indicate a coverup, and a whole lot of bad judgement. This has nothing to do with it being a powerboat. It simply has to do with what is right, and what is not right. In reading this thread over a couple of days I smell something that's just a little fishy

If you do a little research you will find blogs with local people complaining about how crooked the local cops are in Lake County and how this has been a problem for decades. I think earlier in this thread I linked to one, but there are others which I have found.

This is not the first time the local authorities have covered for one of their own. They seem to know the drill pretty well. What happened here is that a TV station got a hold of the story and now in this day of blogs and internet communication this kind of behavior is getting much more coverage that what Lake County officials are used to.

[Hiracer]

dacust:

I stand by what I said: Basically, if you hit something, you are at fault.

It is a very rare case, indeed, where there is a collision and no fault can be ascribed.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

The proximate cause was the criminal reckless speed of the motor boat.

And to beat the horse deader than dead, Dinius's alcohol consumption was not a proximate cause of the accident either, notwithstanding the opinion of the prosecuting attorney who is doing nothing more than covering for his cohort, Perdock.

Perdocks' own statement at the time of the accident was that he was going 40 - 45 mph. He stated the dials were pointing straight up, which indicates a speed of 50 mph. A retired cop witnessed Perdock going at an estimated speed of 50 - 60 mph just before the accident. The carnage from the impact clearly indicates a very high rate of speed. The motor boat ramped clean over the sailboat.

And he admits to driving at night like this all the time, even after admitting that he's seen unlit boats on the lake at night.

I don't really care what Dinius or the sailboat owner was doing, lights, drinking, etc. They could not have done anything to avoid this accident. Perdock was a reckless, self-absorbed cop who thought he was above the law because he was the law.

And now we get to find out whether he is.

Some might want to pin me as prejudiced against motor boaters. You could not read me more wrong. I'm prejudiced against this kind of authority figure. I don't like them, one damn bit. Backwoods cop who thinks he's above the law. I got this guy's number.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

And to beat the horse deader than dead, Dinius's alcohol consumption was not a proximate cause of the accident either, notwithstanding the opinion of the prosecuting attorney who is doing nothing more than covering for his cohort, Perdock.

Perdocks' own statement at the time of the accident was that he was going 40 - 45 mph. He stated the dials were pointing straight up, which indicates a speed of 50 mph. A retired cop witnessed Perdock going at an estimated speed of 50 - 60 mph just before the accident. The carnage from the impact clearly indicates a very high rate of speed. The motor boat ramped clean over the sailboat.

I don't really care what Dinius or the sailboat owner was doing, lights, drinking, etc. They could not have done anything to avoid this accident. Perdock was a reckless, self-absorbed cop who thought he was above the law because he was the law.

And now we get to find out whether he is.

Some might want to pin me as prejudiced against motor boaters. You could not read me more wrong. I'm prejudiced against this kind of authority figure. I don't like them, one damn bit. Backwoods cop who thinks he's above the law. I got this guy's number.

John,

I'm with you, there. Since no one has brought it up, it doesn't sound like there is a bizarre law there like there is here in Georgia where DUI makes you guilty by default no matter what the situation. I certainly hope not.

I share your prejudice against backwoods cops.

-dan

[Alan Wheeler]

Warning! Keep topic on subject or we will assume the thread has done it's dash and close it.

[Hiracer]

Alan:

Duly noted. I'll cool my jets for a while.