Visit our Popular Forums

NoTies · 10-07-2014, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by sardinebreath

Say you hire a security firm to protect your house and family, and then your daughter is raped and murdered by an intruder when the guards were playing poker rather than watching cameras. You sue?

No, I am self sufficient and look after myself and my family without relying on electronic gadgetry.

**Ex-Calif** · 10-07-2014, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spleen

Based on my experience as a defendant with an insurance company who had a duty to defend me, I expect the insurance company will AGGRESSIVELY defend their company from this action by the Kaufmans. I'm not sure the kaufmans will get anything but grief, stress and a prolonged reliving of tramautic events from their lives. They may also be a little embarrassed at the items from their lives that will become talking points (though they seem to have no shame, so they may not even care)...

For a 30-something y/o couple with little to no experience of failure they were extremely confident in their ability to overcome any odds and sail around the world.

As time separates them from the feeling of fear of loss (for their daughter) when on that boat they start to reflect.

"Eric is a great seaman and I am a great mom. If it's not our fault that our dreams are smashed then who's fault is it?"

I feel bad for them because they have chosen to go this path - I don't feel bad for cross posting or repeating anything they say or said because they are choosing to make this public and they may as well get ready for people who may not agree with them.

I worry that stuff will be brought up they haven't even thought about that is going to be extremely hurtful.

Read some of the blog posts from the early days in San Diego - "Eric and I talked about having kids. He was worried having kids would kill his (our) dream to sail around the world. I promised him it wouldn't."

I would much rather lay out $20 for their book on, "What I learned about being ready to go" than to watch them receive a check because it's cheaper for the satphone company to make them go away.

The book requires work. The settlement requires whining about an unfair world...

Celestialsailor · 10-07-2014, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoTies

I stand by my comments and prefer to let my number of miles speak more than my number of posts

Ya...I'm sure you're a real Joshua Slocum and that's fine but miles do not dictate rules for other people. We all make out own choices. Not that a person shouldn't go sailing if they have an idea about the equipment that they feel is important. "he should not have been out there, simple"!!! "then you have no right to call yourself a bluewater cruiser". Who are you to judge that?

fryewe · 10-07-2014, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbordz

...In the interview video Erik states that he had everything he needed to make the child well (drugs, syringes) and only needed info from the pediatrician. Once the Parajumpers got him that info with their functioning cell phones and the child was considered stable, why abandon ship?

Why didn't the family stay on the boat if all they needed was the info they got? Did the whole trip rely on a single sat phone?...

I fail to see the connection between a non-functioning satphone and the choice to scuttle a boat whose owner said was plagued by structural, mechanical and electrical problems.

I think longbordz has the crux of this nailed.

The loss of the RH was not due to a lack of SAT PHONE connectivity. RH was scuttled.

Scuttling RH was the Captain's decision.

At the time of scuttling any hardship of RH's that had been exacerbated by comms issues had been ameliorated.

Based on the chain of events it's not clear that the scenario would have played out any differently if the SAT PHONE had worked perfectly. The youngster was likely no sicker. The boat would have been in no better shape. The crew would likely have still been sick of voyaging. And a MEDEVAC of the child may have still been asked.

And the Captain of RH would still have scuttled his vessel.

Not because his SAT PHONE didn't work. But reportedly because he wanted to stay with his family.

But likely because his ship was falling apart around him in the manner Smack alluded to earlier in this thread.

**Ex-Calif** · 10-07-2014, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

So are the Kaufman's going to repay the government for SAR costs after they lose this case? You can't have it both ways.

Oh it to be true but proving that satphone was not at fault is not the same as proving that Kaufman was at fault.

However, in Singapore in many civil matters the loser pays the winners costs...

My ex-wife and I fought jurisdiction in advance of the actual divorce. I was ordered to pay a significant portion of her attorney fees. The court reduced the fees I had to pay because her lawyer fees were deemed unreasonably high. To say I was shocked was an understatement - My lawyer gave no indication of this - he was a crap lawyer - Did I sue him? Life's too short. Pick up the pieces and move on.

I bet that would change the game in the US of A...

SmartMove · 10-07-2014, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

what I don't understand in all this is what "change of service provider". If you have an Iridium phone , there is only one provider, Iridium. All the SIM cards are iridiums. Maybe these cheap sat phones stores are resellers of resellers. if so run away in my view.

dave

Dave,

I don't think this is true. We have an Iridium sat phone, but our provider is Ocens and they issued our SIM card. Because we are off the boat right now I cannot confirm that the SIM card is Iridium or not but it is totally managed by Ocens -- minutes, email, etc.

After nearly two years of cruising, hubby and I are both in agreement that the sat phone was the worst investment we have made -- don't get me started! Let's just say, I (we) are not depending on it in a life or death situation.

Robyn

Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Celestialsailor · 10-07-2014, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by montenido

Well, from reading this thread, it looks like the jury has decided. Most of you feel that Rebel heart and crew were wrong from the start, and have no right to expect a paid communication service to function.

This is sad. I would expect better from sailors who claim to be "out there doing it".

I'm out, Bill

Well that's the thing Bill...People can be all high and mighty about their moral stand on an issue until they loose everything. Then they look at what options they have to recover. The reality is...Eric is not suing Iridium...he is suing their insurance. I've been hosed by insurance twice and wouldn't loose a wink of sleep over suing them if I was in his shoes.

Celestialsailor · 10-07-2014, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

If you go to sea. " expecting " long range comms to work and bail you out, you've no right to be there in the first place.

Eric's troubles were nothing to do with his communications equipment, and I personally tired of pussy footing around this issue. His issues were lack of experience, an ill prepared crew , poorly found vessel and essentially "biting off more then he could chew". There are no excuses or hidey holes for Eric. In my opinion he f#%k#d up!, happens to us all sooner or later. We just learn and move on.

Playing the media game , suing, the constant internet presence , says more about who he is as a person then anything to do with sailing.

Notwithstanding all that I wish him the best of luck. The world is not a nice place and he needs the sponduleeks.

Dave

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow...Thank you Dr. Phil

Kenomac · 10-07-2014, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

If you go to sea. " expecting " long range comms to work and bail you out, you've no right to be there in the first place.

Eric's troubles were nothing to do with his communications equipment, and I personally tired of pussy footing around this issue. His issues were lack of experience, an ill prepared crew , poorly found vessel and essentially "biting off more then he could chew". There are no excuses or hidey holes for Eric. In my opinion he f#%k#d up!, happens to us all sooner or later. We just learn and move on.

Playing the media game , suing, the constant internet presence , says more about who he is as a person then anything to do with sailing.

Notwithstanding all that I wish him the best of luck. The world is not a nice place and he needs the sponduleeks.

Dave

I couldn't agree more.

Here's what I wrote earlier in the thread which is basically the same idea:

"Has it come to this point in America, where anytime some fool decides to head out into the woods on a hike and manages to get lost, he or she can then sue their cell phone company when the phone doesn't work for whatever the reason (didn't pay their bill, no coverage, phone is broken, dropped it in a puddle, messed up SIM card).... because their weekend adventure was spoiled by a costly rescue?"

I remember a time not long ago, when we didn't have cell phones and SAT phones. When folks didn't go crying to the media, blaming others and want everyone else to bail them out when things didn't work out as planned.

Ken

SmartMove · 10-07-2014, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

OK - For those who want "big business to pay."

Think about this. If Eric gets a judgment, and the government gets paid (although I haven't heard they are joining the suit - LOL) the "big business" isn't going to pay.

Anyone who subscribes to satphonestore.com service is going to pay. Through higher fees. That may mean you and me.

It's an inference on my part but in all probability, Eric did not have insurance covering loss of his boat.

A sat phone is not an insurance policy. If Eric wanted to insure his journey, he should have.

I understand what you are saying about the higher costs. But, honestly, if I have to pay more to know my sat phone (and provider) are more reliable -- count me in!

Right now we are working really hard to become the best sailors we can be before setting off across oceans. We are also really working hard (and spending the money) to make sure our boat is in tip top shape before we set off.

Having said all that, we don't expect to have to push the big 'red button' or use the sat phone (for emergencies) but if we do have to I want it to work! Also, I want the sat phone to work for weather reasons, but we have SSB for back up.

Just sayin'

Robyn

Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

SmartMove · 10-07-2014, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheechako

If nothing else, it makes sailors and other wilderness users aware that they are not necessarily buying a way of making contact when they sign up for the Sat Phone. That in itself has value.

+1

Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

**Dockhead** · 10-07-2014, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by psneeld

I don't know of one small boat operator that would classify a handheld sat phone as safety equipment any more than the international distress flag rolled up in their flare kits.

Sure it's a tool in the bag of tricks...and you hope like hell it works when you have an emergency ...

Especially for something like a medical emergency that wouldn't require rescue if good comms could prevent it...but hoping is a lousy word/concept to use near the front of any survival plan.

There are a lot of sailors on this board who consider their sat phones to be their primary distress signalling device. Have a look at any one of the many "SSB vs Satphone" threads on here.

I do not (my fixed-installed sat phone is not even activated); I think EPIRB and DSC HF radio are primary tools for this. But a sat phone, if you have one on board, is one arrow in your quiver, and might turn out to be the very one you really need in some particular situation.

Everyone (under every legal system in the world that I know of, and not just our screwed up American one) has a duty to avoid causing harm to others by our negligence. And if we violate that duty, we have to pay for the damages which are caused by our negligence. There are a million qualifications to that, but that is the general rule which applies everywhere.

If Eric really needed his sat phone to consult with doctors in order to know what to do with his sick child, and if he couldn't use his sat phone not because of an ordinary outage or ordinary dropped call, and not because he didn't pay his bill, but because the sat phone company did something really stupid, really negligent, like cutting off his service while he was in the middle of the ocean because he didn't receive a new SIM card, and if he was forced to abandon ship because he couldn't deal with the problem because he had no comms, and he could have reasonably expected to save the ship otherwise, then the sat phone company might really very well be liable to pay for those damages.

I repeat that we know only less than 1% of the facts, and we only know one side of the story, so this is all typical Internet speculation. But if the facts are ANYTHING like this, then the phone company is going to have a tough case. And I can't say they don't deserve it. Eric will find a lawyer who will take such a case (if it is really like the way it is described) on a contingency fee basis, and the phone company will get a major battle, without Eric's having to fund it. The lawyers take it on spec, as it were.

The big ethical question is not whether he sues or not (based on these facts, I would sue as well). It will be whether Eric will agree to a reasonable settlement which gets his boat replaced, or whether he will press on for millions of other kinds of damages (California is a notoriously bad jurisdiction for defendants in this kind of case). That's a really interesting ethical dilemma, actually. I guess few people would have the backbone to resist it, with their lawyers whispering seductive rationalizations into their ears.

Also, don't forget the question of insurance. We all pay for all the insurance which covers us, whether it is our own insurance, or the insurance of companies we buy products and services from. A reasonable settlement covering the lost boat just means that Eric will be using the phone company's insurance, instead of the insurance he should have had himself (another discussion), and not too much harm will be done to anyone. Ordinary negligence, ordinary damages -- that's an everyday thing and is what insurance exists for. A big public court battle with millions in damages is another thing. The lawyers will make millions, the phone company may be damaged financially, and in the end it is us who pay for this, too -- just that this kind of thing goes beyond ordinary insurance.

**Dockhead** · 11-07-2014, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomfl

Standard advice for lawyers is to edit all briefs at least ten times before you submit them.

Your comment 'could tell you WHO this will end' does not really make sense to me. I suspect you were trying to post 'could tell you HOW this will end'.

In any case I can find nothing to suggest RH's lawyer has any maritime training, seems more like a straight up personal injury ambulance chaser.

Most lawyers I know also advise never trust what a jury will do.

If the sat phone company can prove in court they sent the SIM to RH twelve days before he sailed my best guess is it gets tossed in pre trial hearings. But the only thing riskier than predicting what a jury will do is predicting what a judge will do.

Yes. As I said -- we only know one side of the story, and we only know 1% even of that. This is pure Internet speculation and let's not forget that.

If the sat phone company did what Eric has said they did, and there aren't other facts which change the case, then the phone company is in a lot of trouble, and this is not a hard case requiring creative lawyering.

This would not then be a case where the phone company "failed to warn" Eric that sat phones don't always work (like the case where McDonald's failed to warn that hot coffee can burn you; or the one where Porsche AG failed to warn some dumbass that a Porsche 911 Turbo is faster than ordinary cars -- outrageous cases, both of them) or other questionable grounds -- this would be a case where the phone company just flat stupidly screwed up, and the boat was lost because of it, or at least to a significant degree because of it. If that's all true and there aren't other facts which put it all into another light, then they should pay, and they would have to pay under the laws of practically any country on earth.

The fact that Eric was unprepared, unskilled, etc., that his boat was in poor condition -- this is not necessarily relevant. The phone company will try to prove, of course, if the case gets so far, that these were the main reasons that the boat was lost. They will try to prove that the boat would not have been lost if Eric had stayed with it after the baby was evacuated. But these really might not have been the main reasons. Eric might really have pulled it out if he had been able to deal with the baby's illness.

It used to be the case that any amount of "contributory negligence" by a plaintiff in a tort case would invalidate the plaintiff's claim. That has not been the case in most states for many decades -- nowadays, principles of "comparative negligence" apply in most states, which would mean in this case that if Eric's negligence contributed to the loss then the judgement might be reduced, but the phone company would have to pay.