Pay Back Time?

I try to give them plenty of room, so there is distance and time to turn into the wake. If not then we can take them on the stern as the Eagle stern is round so the majority of the wave passes under/around. It takes a big wake to knock the Eagle around. Bayliners and Ocean seem to be the biggest offenders in the Puget Sound as we do not have many fish killers. I try to give crew/passengers plenty of notice. Get ready to rock and roll! The only things we have to stow are the high/tall center of gravity stuff. There have been a few time I might have squealed.

As for the locks since the bigger boats are put up against the wall we are the first one in and the last one out.

Law seems to suggest that since you are there you will assume some accountability / Liability. Even if your vessel is damaged by wake while dock side. We are accountable and your insurance policy backs this up.

I cruise on confined waters all the time. I have a choice when clearing any bridge or narrow spot to let the guy behind clear first by letting him by if he has slowed. My first line of defence.

But when you get that guy rushing up behind you and I dont get the chance to force the slow pass. I try to control the side they pass me on. I will in a slow way force them to my port side. I will continue to do so untill they are beside me giving me the finger while producing that tsunami. What I have done is given me some room to put the stern to the wave, I power down and let that nasty wake pass under me. Then power back up and carry on. Make use of my boat length while reducing any surf tendancy. Have enough room to let the wave pass under pior to needing a course change.

They may not be willing to slow but I can and take advantage of the slow boats ride.

YMMV but works for me.

OFB said:

............ But when you get that guy rushing up behind you and I dont get the chance to force the slow pass. I try to control the side they pass me on. I will in a slow way force them to my port side. I will continue to do so untill they are beside me giving me the finger while producing that tsunami. ............. .

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the plan I came up with after the last incident. Gently force them to slow down by forcing them out of the channel.

I'll probably get some heat for posting that plan, but I don't care. It's all just opinions anyway. I'm glad to see someone else has figured ot the same plan.

Moonstruck said:

Larry, maybe they were just trying to get a good look at your Double Doody Dinghy Davits.

Good point. I would really love to give them a demo as they charge by.

If you want to try outside from Stuart, I recommend you get some local knowledge of the St. Lucie Inlet.

Last time I went outside at Jupiter, I was accosted by an hour of 5ft. confused chop, but the rest of the trip to Miami was easy 4 ft. Rollers.

Who is doing your glass work?

After a two week long process of removing my outer roof skin (including 20 hours of grinding the glue off the inner panel with 16 grit) I had a new 12.5 x 8.5 panel made at Beachcomber's in Stuart, then had Custom Boat Works do the foam fill and faring of the new panel. Just finished Wednesday, now waiting for aftercooler and gear-cooler from Yanmar.

Click to expand...

Just got a call that my aftercooler is here, and I could actually depart this evening or in the morning, but it would be the same contest back down the ICW. I'll wait, thank you.

I'll admit I am a little sensitive to this issue after an incident on the Hudson a few years ago. We were southbound in the area of West Point is a 37', single screw doing about 8knots. We were passed by a pair of 80 footers (one on either side doing about 20knots) within about 100' of us. Both my wife and I were thrown across the pilot house and she wore the evidence of serious bruises from shoulder to heel on one side of her body for weeks. There was no cell phone signal and VHF does not get far in the mountains so there was no one to call to file a complaint and we did not get the boat names anyway. It's a good thing we don't carry guns onboard or I would have taken a shot.

Yes, you have the right to use the water, No, you do not have the right to endanger others.

boatpoker said:

vessels are required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property (46 USC 2302). Nor do the Navigation Rules exonerate any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2), which, among other things, could be unsafe speeds (Rule 6), improper lookout (Rule 5), or completely ignoring your responsibilities as prescribed by the Navigation Rules.

Click to expand...

I have read that rule many many times.

I believe that the rule you cited actually proves my point.

This belief is strengthened by the actual practice in the field that the USCG does not cite captains for wake damage outside of controlled wake areas.

ksanders said:

I have read that rule many many times.

I believe that the rule you cited actually proves my point.

This belief is strengthened by the actual practice in the field that the USCG does not cite captains for wake damage outside of controlled wake areas.

Click to expand...

I think you should re-read my original quote again. I don't see how
"Nor do the Navigation Rules exonerate any vessel from the consequences of neglect" supports your argument and I don't think
the lawyers or the families really care if the USCG issues a ticket or not ..............

(CNN) -- A tour boat carrying a group of senior citizens capsized and sank on an upstate New York lake Sunday, killing 20 passengers, local authorities said.
The Ethan Allen was carrying 48 passengers and one crew member when it overturned off Cramer's Point, on the western shore of Lake George, Warren County Sheriff Larry Cleveland told reporters.
The passengers were part of a group of elderly people from Michigan, he said. (Watch video of police searching the lake -- 1:20 )
"Some were using walkers and wheelchairs and were not able to get around easily," he added.
The 40-foot boat was navigating calm, 70-foot-deep waters on a clear, 69-degree day when at 2:55 p.m. the vessel apparently rolled over after being hit by the wake of a larger craft, Cleveland said. (Map of area)
"We know this happened very quickly," Cleveland told CNN. "He (the boat's captain) didn't have time to put out a mayday call by radio. He didn't even have time hardly to alert the passengers of the potential problem that was about to befall them."
The boat is operated by Shoreline Cruises, based in Lake George, New York, about 50 miles north of Albany. Both the operators and the captain, who was not hurt, "are cooperating with us fully," Cleveland said.
Though all the survivors were taken to nearby Glens Falls Hospital to be checked out, only as many as six appeared to need immediate treatment, he said.
"I'm not aware of any such incident of this magnitude in 37 years I've been on this job," said Wayne Bennett, superintendent of the state police. "This is unprecedented."

or how about the Florida statute .............

Reckless and Careless Operation

• Anyone who operates a vessel with willful disregard for the safety of persons or property will be cited for reckless operation (a first-degree misdemeanor).

Or from the New York State Boaters Guide ............


parades, always transit.

Will the first skipper to test these rules please post the resulting litigation results and the cost to defend themselves.

"Every" motorboat goes faster than I. It's not uncommon for the wake to reach the top of the gunwale when turning into the wake. It's usually not a problem unless distracted and don't maneuver to address the wake. But most of the time the wake is insignificant, such as from this GB (36?) passing me the other day going less than hull speed and staying a helpful distance. The worse wakes seem to come mostly from faster 40 and 50-footers.



Best results usually come by turning something like 80 degrees into the wake from a boat passing parallel from behind and 45 degrees from a boat passing parallel from ahead.

In California inland waters, it is illegal to go faster than 5 MPH within 200 feet of docked boats or within 100 feet of a swimmer.

timjet said:

Will the first skipper to test these rules please post the resulting litigation results and the cost to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

I was just involved last year as a witness...a guy in a boat suited for only inland, protected waters ventured into a coastal inlet and was swamped by a 65 foot party fishing boat. I responded as an assistance tower to the swamped boat, pumped it out and turned it back over to the owner.

The Marine Police knucklehead (a shame as most of the ones here are great) issued a citation without so much as questioning anyone buy the complainer. Once it hit the USCG they just ignored it because of the facts, so did the higher ups in the state police but had to follow through because of the citation.

Last I heard it was dismissed due to the overwhelming support of other maritime law enforcement officers and eye witnesses such as myself that supported the party boat captain in that he needed the speed he was making to safely clear the inlet drawbridge. If he paid a lawyer yes that would be a shame...but I really doubted he needed one on the merits alone and could have easily done the same with a little research on his own.

Yes he could get sued...but I'm sure the swamped guy would get laughed out of court after about 3 expert witnesses.

Just remembered a friend who is a charter guy had a similar issue a couple years back...didn't even get a citation after the LEOs asked a few questions.

These like thousands of other no wake complaints get tossed when the whole story is told...

timjet said:

Will the first skipper to test these rules please post the resulting litigation results and the cost to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

I can't seem to find any case law where a pleasure boater, operating in an uncontrolled area of the ocean has ever actually been sued for wake damage, absent of other extenuating circumstances.

Operating your boat, within its operating limits is not in and of itself neglegent. Other actions could be neglegent, an d we can all think of them, but hitting the throttle after you leave a no wake zone isn't one of them.

Even though I generally go slow I reserve the right to operate my vessle within its operating limits in uncontroled waters. There are probably 20 50' charter fishing boats that do just that every day of the season at my home port. None of them seem to get sued.

As for people that get waked, sorry, but be a better captain. Keep your gear stowed. Pay attention. Oh gosh, maybe a wave will come up and rock the boat. If the boat cannot take another boats wake, then possibly its not seaworthy enough to be out in the ocean. Thats what harbors, bays, lakes and rivers are for. If someone wants to sue, then let them go for it. My insurance company will defend my prudent, seamanship like actions per my contract with them.

ksanders said:

I can't seem to find any case law where a pleasure boater, operating in an uncontrolled area of the ocean has ever actually been sued for wake damage, absent of other extenuating circumstances.

Operating your boat, within its operating limits is not in and of itself neglegent. Other actions could be neglegent, an d we can all think of them, but hitting the throttle after you leave a no wake zone isn't one of them.

Even though I generally go slow I reserve the right to operate my vessle within its operating limits in uncontroled waters. There are probably 20 50' charter fishing boats that do just that every day of the season at my home port. None of them seem to get sued.

As for people that get waked, sorry, but be a better captain. Keep your gear stowed. Pay attention. Oh gosh, maybe a wave will come up and rock the boat. If the boat cannot take another boats wake, then possibly its not seaworthy enough to be out in the ocean. Thats what harbors, bays, lakes and rivers are for. If someone wants to sue, then let them go for it. My insurance company will defend my prudent, seamanship like actions per my contract with them.

Click to expand...

I've never seen a claim regarding wake damage- and I don't ever think I will. Otherwise, the many commercial ships plying the waters of Puget Sound, SE AK, the Chesapeake, Galveston and San Francisco Bays, etc., would surely be mired deep in litigation.

The boater is required to be prudent. Being prudent has a different definition for each skipper, and none are cast in concrete. I know I've waked a few smaller boats in my years of boating, and I've been waked. Never been sued, never have sued anyone, and never got into altercations regarding same. It's a boat on the water, people- it's going to rock and be subject to wave/wake action.

ksanders said:

Operating your boat, within its operating limits is not in and of itself neglegent. Other actions could be neglegent, an d we can all think of them, but hitting the throttle after you leave a no wake zone isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, trust you keep a reasonable distance away like the professionals operating 33-knot ferry boats here.

boatpoker said:

You are responsible for any accident or injury caused by your wake regardless of wake or no wake zone.

Click to expand...

I agree, especially on the wake/no wake zone aspect. You don`t have to commit an offense to attract civil liability. But each case turns on its facts.

At best, ksanders examples sound like contributory negligence rather than exculpation. It`s like colliding with a car you can easily see and avoid parked in a no parking zone,and claiming the parked car is 100% at fault. You know it`s there, you have to deal with it safely. BruceK

BruceK said:

I agree, especially on the wake/no wake zone aspect. You don`t have to commit an offense to attract civil liability. But each case turns on its facts.

At best, ksanders examples sound like contributory negligence rather than exculpation. It`s like colliding with a car you can easily see and avoid parked in a no parking zone,and claiming the parked car is 100% at fault. You know it`s there, you have to deal with it safely. BruceK

Click to expand...

Relating ANYTHING boating to anything motor vehicle to me is totally irrelavent...thankfully maritime couts and hearings generally know the extreme difference and civil courts often follow their lead.

markpierce said:

If that's the case, trust you keep a reasonable distance away like the professionals operating 33-knot ferry boats here.

Click to expand...

Of course. Keeping a reasonable distance is responsible seamanship.

I don't slow down but I do alter my course and try to avoid people fishing by a mile or so. If I'm going slow I have been known to come pretty close to see if they are catching anything.

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Ms. Bess. Not meaning to sound too critical here but don't you have a provision for securing furniture and other items in a seaway to prevent "scrambling"? Since experiencing a "blender" moment many years ago where our vessel appeared to be gyrating through 45 degrees in a severe beam sea, for what seemed like hours, whenever leaving port, we make sure any and all projectiles are firmly secured. That being said, any unanticipated rolling, from wakes etc. is usually precluded and acknowledged by "Hang on tight".

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, but we don't always remember to tie down the furniture for a day cruise. We do when we expect weather or beam seas for sure. But some of these big wakes when you are out for a short 2 hour cruise can change your day for sure. Kind of like the Fridge stays closed, but when you open it **** flies out at you. Doesn't ruin your day, but it sure makes you experience that moment!

psneeld said:

Relating ANYTHING boating to anything motor vehicle to me is totally irrelavent...thankfully maritime couts and hearings generally know the extreme difference and civil courts often follow their lead.

Click to expand...

psneeld, it`s better to think about issues than put downs.
Does this help? Replace the parked car with a fishing dinghy visible and anchored where it should not be. Is it ok for a cruiser to pass fast enough and close enough so its wake throws the fishermen into the water? No, there is a duty of care to the dinghy occupants, whether or not also at fault.

BruceK said:

psneeld, it`s better to think about issues than put downs.
Does this help? Replace the parked car with a fishing dinghy visible and anchored where it should not be. Is it ok for a cruiser to pass fast enough and close enough so its wake throws the fishermen into the water? No, there is a duty of care to the dinghy occupants, whether or not also at fault.

Click to expand...

OK, well if we're going to use parallels.

Lets say that someone comes onto a freeway and about a mile past the onramp they decide to stop, get out and stretch their legs. (just like the idiot standing while fishing just outside the no wake zone)

Should the semi that drives by be held neglegent if the wind he causes knocks the person down?


I'll go with Petes answer. Hes in the marine insurance business. If he hasn't seen a claim in all his years in the business then they must be far and few between.

That nullifies the whole "you'll get sued" argument.

No criminal citations, no lawsuits, no issue except that we've all gotten suprised by a wake or two. The difference is that some of us want to blame others for our inattention, insted of learning a lesson to keep a sharp lookout from it.

BruceK said:

psneeld, it`s better to think about issues than put downs.
Does this help? Replace the parked car with a fishing dinghy visible and anchored where it should not be. Is it ok for a cruiser to pass fast enough and close enough so its wake throws the fishermen into the water? No, there is a duty of care to the dinghy occupants, whether or not also at fault.

Click to expand...

Not unusual to pass close to a small, anchored, open-top boat due to narrow channels, etcetera, so make an effort to slow from cruising speed of 6.3 knots to 4.5 knots to reduce wake when passing.



Same for docked boats.

Someone explain. How come small boats create much greater wakes than ships? This ship created virtually no wake:



Versus this boat which rolled me due to my day dreaming (but only the first time that day):

psneeld said:

My motto... being a good seaman means you are responsible for EXPECTING a wake at any time and being prepared. While they may be uncomfortable...they should not be damaging or dangerous....or you need to buy a different boat...

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up in my opinion. While the legalities can be debated ad infinitum they won't change the actual situations you encounter. One of the requirements of the Colregs is that each vessel keep a proper lookout. To me, that means looking over your shoulder regularly to see what's coming up from behind. Or using the radar to show you overtaking traffic that you can then turn around and look at, visibility permitting.

While never say never I cannot recall any time when we have been surprised by a wake. We've had to deal with our share of big ones, particularly from the big semi-planing boats mushing through the water at 15 or 20 knots. But we regularly check behind us, we have the radar going all the time and actually look at it fairly frequently to see what's what out there. So while we've been seriously pissed off on occasion by the inconsiderate bozo who insists on passing us at speed a few boat lengths away, we've always seen them coming and been ready to deal with the wake.

And like RTF's earlier post, we assume we'll get waked at some point so we plan accordingly with things like coffee cups, plates, binoculars, cameras, etc.

I think a major part of being good at boating (or flying or driving or......) is having the ability to anticipate the consequences of something happening. "If I put that there and we get nailed by a wake, it's going to hit the floor or spill all over my camera." So you put it somewhere where that won't happen.

I continue to be surprised by how many people don't seem to have that anticipatory ability.

markpierce said:

Not unusual to pass close to a small, anchored, open-top boat due to narrow channels, etcetera, so make an effort to slow from cruising speed of 6.3 knots to 4.5 knots to reduce wake when passing.
Same for docked boats.

Click to expand...

As do I. For rowers and kayakers too. Largely out of courtesy.I can easily reduce the effect I can readily foresee my wake may have on others.
So we have 1)duty of care and 2) foreseeable risk of harm. Add 3) breach of duty of care, and 4)damage. The basis of negligence claim.
My posts were an entirely well intended attempt to help. People can (some obviously do) reject it, preferring their own opinion or an insurance broker`s.
I`m comfortable having offered my view, receive it how you wish. BruceK

boatpoker said:

(CNN) -- A tour boat carrying a group of senior citizens capsized and sank

Click to expand...

Bad example, that boat sank because it was overloaded by about 3 times its limit. The wake that triggered the event was no more the cause than was daylight or the coffee the passengers had when they were younger.

For what its worth, here in Queensland, the law is to not go past another vessel on the plane/making wake any closer than 30 metres. Belive it or not, that bit of extra distance does matter, and if observed the wake effect is minimised and bearable even if caught beam on. Not so good if they pass closer. So Ksanders, just give another vessel you pass that amount of distance and you can power on to your hearts content.

Peter B said:

For what its worth, here in Queensland, the law is to not go past another vessel on the plane/making wake any closer than 30 metres. Belive it or not, that bit of extra distance does matter, and if observed the wake effect is minimised and bearable even if caught beam on. Not so good if they pass closer. So Ksanders, just give another vessel you pass that amount of distance and you can power on to your hearts content.

Click to expand...

I would never dream of passing another boat at less than 30M while up on plane. I actually stay much farther than that from other boats, because of the huge wake my boat throws at semi planing speeds.

For me, this is really a theoretical discussion. While I reserve the right to go faster, I don't actually operate my boat that way. I run the boat at between 7 and 9 knots almost all the time.

BruceK said:

psneeld, it`s better to think about issues than put downs.
Does this help? Replace the parked car with a fishing dinghy visible and anchored where it should not be. Is it ok for a cruiser to pass fast enough and close enough so its wake throws the fishermen into the water? No, there is a duty of care to the dinghy occupants, whether or not also at fault.

Click to expand...

My real point is maritime law is quite different than most laws and while civil liability law isn't...often it's tied back to the "criminal" investigation for facts, statements, etc...etc and rarely do I hear of most ambulance chasers willing to take on maritime law when there are so many juicy vehicular cases to grab...

But also...DRIVING A BOAT ISN'T EVEN REMOTELY LIKE OPERATING A CAR ON A ROAD.... I'm amazed anyone with experience would even think so.

ksanders said:

I can't seem to find any case law where a pleasure boater, operating in an uncontrolled area of the ocean has ever actually been sued for wake damage, absent of other extenuating circumstances..

Click to expand...

You are an attorney?

It's probably important to note that probably less than 1% of pleasure boating is done in uncontrolled areas of the ocean. I don't think the point you are attempting to make is relevant to the discussion.

BruceK said:

psneeld, it`s better to think about issues than put downs..

Click to expand...

He can't help it. That's his style.

psneeld said:

... being a good seaman means you are responsible for EXPECTING a wake at any time and being prepared. While they may be uncomfortable...they should not be damaging or dangerous....or you need to buy a different boat...

Click to expand...

With that philosophy, we should all be running aircraft carriers.