Captain Damaged Neighboring Boat- Who is Responsible?

[Jammer Six]

You forgot the exploding dog.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by OldFrog75

Really? I didn't know that. I've always assumed the driver of the vehicle is responsible. If I let someone borrow my car and they kill somebody with it, me and my insurance company are liable not the driver? I'm going to call my agent right now and confirm that.

*************

Just got off the phone with AAA and was told the driver of the vehicle is liable but the owner is responsible if the driver doesn't have adequate insurance to cover the damage. Moral of the story is if you're going to loan your vehicle to someone make sure they have adequate coverage of their own.

I think that's a misleading comparison in two regards:

1) Letting someone borrow your car in your absence is different from letting them drive you somewhere in it (or paying them to do so)

2) Killing? aren't you introducing another new element?
Nobody was killed in the OP's situation your post addresses;
surely that raises different legal questions altogether?

[Jammer Six]

Not to mention that he drew sort of a weird conclusion. Given a set of facts that is even as far out there as he suggested, that's not even close to the conclusion I would draw.

Since there's no way for normal people to tell whether someone else's insurance is sufficient, valid or in force, I simply made sure my insurance would protect me if I lent me truck to someone, then went on with my life.

[Pau Hana]

Originally Posted by weavis

Guyz

In order to facilitate an insured transfer of a vessel via the services of a skipper, the Insurance company of the vessels owner wants the qualifications and details of the delivery skipper, and places him or the company on the OWNERS INSURANCE.

That is the end of it. The VESSELS INSURANCE covers any incident arising out of the handling of the vessel by that skipper, and the Insurance company 'holds no harm" to the skipper. EXCEPTING proven in a court of law that he was negligent in a major way. Scraping a vessel doesnt count.

I have a patient (British) who is in litigation with an American owner over the hiring of a crew member who was injured. Fortunately for my patient, the OWNER hired the crew member and forced the skipper to take him along. It would seem that if the skipper (my patient) had hired him, he might be liable under something similar to the Jones Act or whatever. I dont know much more than this but so far my patient has won every step of the way. (He is my patient for health reasons unrelated to this episode).

When this changes, everyone in the industry will suffer. Deliveries will go under the counter or prices will go up to cover huge Skipper premiums.

We dont live in a righteous world, and sometimes its best to suck it up.

Just as I stated it earlier. Simple and to the point. Anything having to do with an auto policy or any other type of policy has no bearing on a marine policy and how the hired employee (skipper) is handled.

I do hundreds of these types of endorsement every year, for over 10 years, and not once has a delivery skipper come to the table with their own insurance policy.

The policy follows the vessel, and the delivery skipper is endorsed onto the vessel owner's policy.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Not to mention that he drew sort of a weird conclusion. Given a set of facts that is even as far out there as he suggested, that's not even close to the conclusion I would draw.

Since there's no way for normal people to tell whether someone else's insurance is sufficient, valid or in force, I simply made sure my insurance would protect me if I lent me truck to someone, then went on with my life.

I agree, and I agree.

[category4jay]

All this legal language maritime law vs contract law mumble jumble is pure horse Dooh! Geez this world is getting sidewise. Its SO simple:

Dude 1 hires Dude 2 to move Dude 1's boat from point A to Point B. Dude 2 damages both Dude 1's boat and Dude 3's boat during that move. Dude 2 needs to Man up! Take responsibility for his own actions and pay for the damages HE caused.

Good Grief people! Get back to the original question. Who is responsible? Answer: Dude 2. Who should pay then? Dude 2. Geez.

[rgscpat]

The bosses and vessel owners of the world would love it if it worked the way Jay sees it, but that's not how it works, except in certain special cases of extreme individual negligence or criminality. Normally, when your peeps screw up, that means you've screwed up, and that especially seems to apply to vessels.

If the BP-Exxon-Shell-Costa Behemoth spills a gazillion drops of oil, do you think the EPA and polluted communities would be satisfied with only having the skipper to make good? No way.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by category4jay

All this legal language maritime law vs contract law mumble jumble is pure horse Dooh! Geez this world is getting sidewise. Its SO simple:

Dude 1 hires Dude 2 to move Dude 1's boat from point A to Point B. Dude 2 damages both Dude 1's boat and Dude 3's boat during that move. Dude 2 needs to Man up! Take responsibility for his own actions and pay for the damages HE caused.

Good Grief people! Get back to the original question. Who is responsible? Answer: Dude 2. Who should pay then? Dude 2. Geez.

Hmmm.. judgement on scanty dubious facts...
If you ever want your boat moved.. I'm busy..

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by category4jay

Good Grief people! Get back to the original question. Who is responsible? Answer: Dude 2. Who should pay then? Dude 2. Geez.

I don't think we're talking about someone who takes responsibility.

By now it's clear to me that Dude 1 hired an unlicensed Dude 2, and because neither of them are willing to step up, the only one who is going to be forced to step up and pay is Dude 1.

I'll also bet that Dude 1 will never hire an unlicensed skipper again, because, well, he could get his boat driven into another boat, and then the skipper could bail on him.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

I don't think we're talking about someone who takes responsibility.

By now it's clear to me that Dude 1 hired an unlicensed Dude 2, and because neither of them are willing to step up, the only one who is going to be forced to step up and pay is Dude 1.

I'll also bet that Dude 1 will never hire an unlicensed skipper again, because, well, he could get his boat driven into another boat, and then the skipper could bail on him.

Hmm
Where do you get the idea the skipper was unlicenced? He would not have been permitted to move the vessel without approval.

If he was unlicenced...... more fool the owner.

AGAIN........... we are talking about the insurance situation. Wrong or right, its the way it is.

You do know in the event of you having a motor vehicle accident, you are NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT IT WAS YOUR FAULT even it it was?

Its the insurance company that determines that...... THEY carry the liability on your behalf.

so when people start quoting "moral obligation"... and "man up" - forget it! Lawyers have shaped the world in such a way that honesty and obligation are not good qualities to have or practice. It costs too much.

Its an unjust world.

[Jammer Six]

If I hit your car, I can get out of my truck and write you a check. No insurance company involved, although, of course, I have insurance. Same thing if I hit your boat.

We can go get your car fixed, and I can write them a check. Then I can drive my truck home with a bent fender, and choose to get it fixed or not. Again, no insurance company involved, even though I have insurance.

If I sink your boat, we can stand on the dock, gaze down through the water and the floating debris, and I can buy your boat. Right where it sits. As is. Cash on the barrel head, name your price. Again, no insurance company involved.

Insurance companies only show up when someone calls them.

Personally, I usually pay for my mistakes, and save my insurance for the day when four people are lying dead in burning vehicles, the fog is too thick to see twenty feet and another car is hitting the pileup every twenty or thirty seconds. I don't use my auto insurance unless someone gets hurt. Then I want it done right, right now, using cops, paramedics, flashing lights and the dust off with the dancing flight nurses. Insurance is for when you can't afford for cost to be an issue.

So tell it to someone else. One can accept one's responsibility or not, or one can invoke one's insurance as one chooses. The exceptions are contractual or legal. (Our charter company, for example.)

In the pileup example, you can accept responsibility simply by telling a LEO what you think happened.

Maybe Spain or the UK are different. That would be a good reason to stay on this side of our fortress. It sounds like the UK and Spain are, well, unjust.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

If I hit your car, I can get out of my truck and write you a check. No insurance company involved, although, of course, I have insurance.

We can go get your car fixed, and I can write them a check. Then I can drive my truck home with a bent fender, and choose to get it fixed or not. Again, no insurance company involved, even though I have insurance.

Insurance companies only show up when someone calls them.

So tell it to someone else. One can accept one's responsibility or not, or one can invoke one's insurance as one chooses. The exceptions are contractual.

.........and then one week later you get a claim for whiplash over and above the damage to the vehicle and then you are in it to your neck because they have talked to a lawyer and the lawyer talked to the insurance company and you did not inform them..........

as a Medical provider ....... I SEE IT ALL THE TIME.

But hey. You know better and I have to respect your idealism.

[Jammer Six]

You see it all the time, and you don't know how to deal with it without an insurance company?

Okay...

Here in the U.S., it's just not that tough. But if you want to believe what you want to believe, so be it.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Maybe Spain or the UK are different. That would be a good reason to stay on this side of our fortress. It sounds like the UK and Spain are, well, unjust.

You see it all the time, and you don't know how to deal with it without an insurance company?

Okay...

Here in the U.S., it's just not that tough. But if you want to believe what you want to believe, so be it.

LOL.......MOST of my understanding and comprehension of how it works came from working the last 12 years in the American medical system.

Here in the U.S its not that tough?

Guy, either you are delusional or argumentative. There is nothing to stop ANYONE accepting your check for damage, cashing it and still going to the insurance company.........and it will be your fault for trusting them. The world is a different world to Dagwood these days...

Im glad your not letting the facts stand in the way of your prejudice. Seems like people can tell you something, but they cant tell you much.

[boatman61]

This from someone who lives in the country that invented the litigation industry and ambulance chasers.. a national mindset that considers going/doing anything/anywhere without every kind of insurance foolhardy..
Oh... Ohhh... my stomach hurts......