Rebel Heart Crew Suing.....

[Spleen]

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.

I'm out, Bill

The ONLY thing that matters is whether there is a law that supports Eric or the satellite company.

RH's wishes, desires and expectations don't garner settlements.

[goboatingnow]

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

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

[Oronoco]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

What do you mean this is a "bad fact"?

Well, for one thing if he wants to be compensated for the boat, what is the value of a craft that has soft decks and open hull/deck seams


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Snore]

The whole concept of litigating and pocketing money for the inconvenience - they did not die, they were inconvenienced- really ticks me off.

In my not so humble opinion, seems like any SAR event should create an immediate copyright of the rescue and events leading to the rescue.

The intent of the copyright is that anyone rescued who writes a book, litigates or in any manner recieves financial compensation must pay 90% of the settlement to the rescuing agency.

Let's face it the REAL damaged party is the US tax payer not Rebel Heart!!!

[Spleen]

... and anyone who needs a satellite phone... IF they get to a settlement (personally doubt it), anyone who has a satellite phone will inevitable be the ones who pay...

[Oronoco]

Originally Posted by longbordz

1)Would it be accurate to say Erik/RH chose to get under way without waiting for the new SIM card that he knew was mailed to him?

2) 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 satphone?

4) Several days they sat on board with the parajumpers satphones before the Vandegrift got on scene.......why didn't Erik contract with a tug to come get him and the boat? Tugs from san diego regularly fetch yachts from Ensenada to Puerto Valllarta and bring them back to San Diego for warrantable repairs.

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 am sure that the lawyers will be getting ideas from these posts and I really like this line of argument


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[smackdaddy]

One of the most important lessons from that interview: If I'm going to take my very young child outside the calling area of our doctor, I need to make sure I know how to get the medicine I've brought along into the child - even if he/she spits it out the first couple of times.

It could save everyone a hell of a lot of grief - and money and paratrooping and litigating and forum-mongering and GMAing and...

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Oronoco

Well, for one thing if he wants to be compensated for the boat, what is the value of a craft that has soft decks and open hull/deck seams


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

(Note cynical flag is raised)

Oh, it's more than than the boat. They lost their dream, their house, their life and it's been too painful to get back on a boat... But I did it anyway.

She is blogging again - he is not. Form your own opinion.

I actually feel really, really bad for them. They had a dream to be in Mexico, Polynesia on the beach - free to roam.

It totally, totally sucks to be living in a studio with Eric working as a Jetboat driver. Their dream was smashed.

The question is did Satphonestore smash their dreams, and if so what is the value of their pain and suffering?

Ok - cynical mode off...

[Spleen]

I hope Charlotte and Eric realize the cost to them emotionally if they sue. My situation lasted a year (thank to a SOL: settle or sue) and I know there were many tears shed by me and the plaintiff-- the whole year was an utterly dismal, challenging and emotional time. The plantiff was injured and needed to be compensated but they were asking for an exorbinate amount of money. The insurance company (on my behalf) decided to play hard ball (a good defense is a strong offense). In the end, neither side was happy with the settlement, which apparently signals a good settlement.

The ONLY reason insurance settled was because although the situation was a straight up accident, the law was against me clearly. There was no defense for me-- I was automatically at fault per the law, even though what happened was "grey area".

Charlotte had better get ready, because this is going to drag out for years and then the lawyer gets 40%. They really need to consider the ding on their quality of life from this point on...

[maj75]

I am a retired maritime attorney and could tell you who this will end, but I'd rather watch amateur lawyers debate this indefinitely.

SeaTow thread anyone

[tookish1]

Originally Posted by maj75

I am a retired maritime attorney and could tell you who this will end, but I'd rather watch amateur lawyers debate this indefinitely.

SeaTow thread anyone

OK Counselor - Who will it end?

[Spleen]

Originally Posted by maj75

I am a retired maritime attorney and could tell you who this will end, but I'd rather watch amateur lawyers debate this indefinitely.

SeaTow thread anyone

Oh, come on, don't be coy. Tell us how this will end. Put your prediction here and we will come back and see if you were right.

[tookish1]

Their lawyer loves the YouTubes! His latest posting is titled:

"Rescue at Sea Case To Recover Taxpayer Money"

How disingenuous can you be? (never mind - "lawyer"!) The only reason the recovery of taxpayer money would be involved is to up the settlement amount so the lawyer would take the case! If they get a new $75,000 boat and personal belongings there isn't a contingency lawyer in the world that would take the case. 40% of $100K or 40% of 900K? Do the math, follow the money.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwHt...ature=youtu.be

[Oronoco]

Originally Posted by soverel

What gets me is that this phone is a product marketed to cruisers for communication capability out of the range of land. I would assume (though i could be wrong) that the phone has gps on it or that the provider would be able to determine where each phone is located globally. I think its gross negligence for them to shut off service across the board without exercising due diligence to determine if their client was in fact mid transit. This is only reasonable given what the product is. I know they could have seen call activity was recently made on this particular phone. I also cant imagine there are so many of these units out there that a phone call could not be made to each customer to ascertain they were not being left without service (mid transit). Was the change of provider a cost saving profit maximizing decision?

Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

When this was covered by Latitude 38, Iridium went on the record saying they would never do a shut off for a dim card replacement.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Captain Bligh

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.

Keep in mind, McDonald's did NOT dump that coffee in her lap, SHE DID! Millions of people have successfully bought McDs coffee and somehow miraculously managed to get it into their mouths without par boiling their genitalia.

I had a spirited conversation with one of the attorneys who represented her. She tried to make the point that McDs had no valid reason to make the coffee 186*F, but I've read the court transcripts, and McDs had numerous coffee experts testify that the best temp to brew coffee is 195-205*. That's not in dispute.

The problem comes when some genius decides to open the cup between her legs and promptly spills it all over her whooha. Who told her to do that? Nobody. Why should someone else pay her for being that stupid? I can't think of one good reason to reward a stupid person. I'm 54 yrs old, drink coffee every morning and I've never boiled my junk in the process. Hell, I should get a MEDAL for that!!

As for this case, they purchased the product and service to use as an emergency source of communications during their journey. Through no fault of their own, the SIM card was deactivated and when they really needed it the most, they didn't have satellite comms. The responsible party needs to be held accountable for this egregious breach of service. As someone posted above, the policy should have been to deactivate the old SIM card AFTER the new card was inserted and had made a good connection to the server.

If Eric had dropped the phone in the water and it quit working, then like the McD's vajajay boiling genius, I'd say tough crap, you learned a painful lesson. Guess you won't do that again. But that's not what happened. Their service was interrupted and it caused a chain of events to change the course of their trip and they felt it best to get rescued. If their service had not been interrupted, things may have been completely different.