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.
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
, 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
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
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
recharging controler and put the boat at risk for additional damage to the standing rigging
, was this gross negligence?
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.