Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead
Waivers of liability in services agreements are rarely enforceable in U.S. courts. Besides that, what happened here might very well be gross negligence.
SNIP
|
I am still having a hard time seeing how even gross negligence on the part of Whenever Comm subjects them to much liability.
Based on posts at CF my understanding was that an uncomfortable seaway was making salmonella in the baby worse. Sanitary conditions on the
boat were questionable at best, with Charlotte
washing dishes and dirty diapers in the same sink
food was prepared in. For what ever reason the
boat was knocked down damaging the hull/deck where chain plates were and allowing
water to enter the
hull and damage the
electrical system,
electronics,
batteries, and in a way I don't completely understand take out the
solar panel controller. Any
repair of the
electronics seemed unlikely without a landfall. There were questions about sufficient
water, lack of ability go get more without a landfall, and
fuel seemed insufficient.
The boat was not fast at best and with potential for more damage, even with reefing, a fast
passage was not possible. The
weather was not predicted to cooperate.
So RH is on a crippled boat short on water and
fuel with a sick baby and by his own account other crew members suffering from salmonella and relief due to them taking antibiotics. Maybe speculation but it seems the baby was not compliant in taking the antibiotics while the rest of those on the boat were.
I am still looking for more details on this but my best guess is the responders who were able to treat the baby administered the antibiotic ROA using a syringe. Not sure about this and it could have been administered using a hypodermic syringe. What ever the case I doubt RH had these instruments/medication on board and this does require some level of
training. Not to mention their use would be complicated by an uncomfortable seaway. The thought of administrating antibiotics to a baby on a
small boat crossing an ocean for a few weeks using either method is not a pleasant one, even for someone trained to do it.
There is also some question about why the sat
phone service was stopped. First we hear about a SIM change and then the
service provider says something about billing. It seems the
phone was working for at least some part of the trip. The timing and reason for the of the shut off of service still seems up in the air. But it does seem like the baby was in
distress for some period of time while the
cell phone worked.
So RH left knowing he and his
family were taking antibiotics for salmonella, was that gross negligence? RH discovered
rot in the
deck and the
repairs prior to the boat leaving on a
blue water passage was poorly done, was this gross negligence? The boat suffered damage to the extent that leaking water damaged the electronics including
communications and
solar recharging controler and put the boat at risk for additional damage to the standing
rigging, was this gross negligence?
Most
events like this are not the result of one
single cause. Rushing to make a
weather window knowing those on the boat are being treated for salmonella on a
small boat with existing
rot in an area where there are chainplates to start a long
blue water passage sounds like a recipe for disaster. Getting knocked down damaged the boat and started the leak and damage to the electronics. The cut off of sat phone service did not contribute to any of these problems. At best it looks like specialized instruments/medication would have been needed to treat the baby, and even if the
cell phone worked it is not clear how they could have been delivered to the boat, even if the sat phone worked.
Maybe Whenever Comm did something wrong, but every day service is cut off for valid reasons and it is not gross negligence. Would it be a good idea for resellers to call up users and say we are getting ready to cut off your service prior to doing it, certainly. But I am not sure it is gross negligence to not do it. A lot of what RH did looks like gross negligence to me.