The Court will decide what speed was negligent, not what speed was safe. Huge difference.
Napa River Boat Collision
- Thread starter FlyWright
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The Court will decide what speed was negligent, not what speed was safe. Huge difference.
Donsan
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 2,300
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- No Mo Trawla
- Vessel Make
- Hurricane SS188
It all may come down to which boat has insurance and which doesn't. If the anchored boat had no lights, it probably had no insurance.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,731
- Location
- California Delta
- Vessel Name
- FlyWright
- Vessel Make
- 1977 Marshall Californian 34 LRC
That's what I'm thinking, too, Donsan. I bet this never goes beyond the insurance company(ies). I'd be surprised if that boat had insurance.
No one has asked me for a witness statement, but since I only "witnessed" it audibly, I doubt I could provide any meaningful information. Doug himself told me he thought he was doing about 30 when I told him I estimated his speed at 25. I doubt there's much I can add that would make a difference.
Don't credit me with doing anything special. I just responded to the scene and stayed in the immediate area until the authorities showed up. Since I knew my friend and the others were OK or being treated for minor injuries, my only concern was another boater making the same mistake with this unlit hazard in the channel. I will say that the pit of my stomach was churning as I approached the decapitated vessel, fearing I might witness the worst possible scene. Thank God, that wasn't the case.
To tell the truth, after waiting for 30 minutes, I recast my fishing lines and continued sturgeon fishing while awaiting the LEOs. No bravery or great skills there. Hell, I didn't even catch a fish that night!!
One thing I learned was that having a capable and simple-to-operate anchoring system allowed me to position the boat just where it needed to be to assist. I just pulled in front of the boat, marked my location with MOB on the GPS, then pulled forward to the rode length desired. I pushed the wireless windlass FOB deploy button and watched the rode deploy from the helm, counting my 30 ft rode markers to get the right distance. Once the anchor set, it was just a matter of using the wireless FOB from the cockpit to ease the boat back into position 10-20 ft at a time. Love this wireless windlass remote FOB!
Thanks for the kind comments, guys. I didn't do anything that probably any other boater on this site would have done in similar circumstances. Just glad that it turned out as well as it did. And a HUGE BRAVO ZULU to the US Coast Guard Station Vallejo crew. Their professionalism and communication that night made a real difference for a guy hanging on scene in the dark. Ironically, as it turns out, I personally knew more about the accident participants at the time than they did.
No one has asked me for a witness statement, but since I only "witnessed" it audibly, I doubt I could provide any meaningful information. Doug himself told me he thought he was doing about 30 when I told him I estimated his speed at 25. I doubt there's much I can add that would make a difference.
Don't credit me with doing anything special. I just responded to the scene and stayed in the immediate area until the authorities showed up. Since I knew my friend and the others were OK or being treated for minor injuries, my only concern was another boater making the same mistake with this unlit hazard in the channel. I will say that the pit of my stomach was churning as I approached the decapitated vessel, fearing I might witness the worst possible scene. Thank God, that wasn't the case.
To tell the truth, after waiting for 30 minutes, I recast my fishing lines and continued sturgeon fishing while awaiting the LEOs. No bravery or great skills there. Hell, I didn't even catch a fish that night!!
One thing I learned was that having a capable and simple-to-operate anchoring system allowed me to position the boat just where it needed to be to assist. I just pulled in front of the boat, marked my location with MOB on the GPS, then pulled forward to the rode length desired. I pushed the wireless windlass FOB deploy button and watched the rode deploy from the helm, counting my 30 ft rode markers to get the right distance. Once the anchor set, it was just a matter of using the wireless FOB from the cockpit to ease the boat back into position 10-20 ft at a time. Love this wireless windlass remote FOB!
Thanks for the kind comments, guys. I didn't do anything that probably any other boater on this site would have done in similar circumstances. Just glad that it turned out as well as it did. And a HUGE BRAVO ZULU to the US Coast Guard Station Vallejo crew. Their professionalism and communication that night made a real difference for a guy hanging on scene in the dark. Ironically, as it turns out, I personally knew more about the accident participants at the time than they did.
Lou_tribal
Guru
Don't underestimate what you did. You promptly responded and did what you were able to do, all this in the middle of the night, this is enough to be salute.
Low hat
L.
Low hat
L.
Benthic2
Guru
Did anyone get cited for anything ?? I'm just thinking that if it were a car accident, the police would write and issue tickets right away...is a marine accident different ?
Most cases like this do not go to the courts. Typically worked out among insurers. Assuming the boat underway has insurance and the other one doesn't, then it may become interesting. The boat without, however, probably has to just accept what, if anything, the other insurer offers. The insurer for Doug will probably be willing to pay the other boat a small amount to avoid potential of more. Court, in a case where you definitely have some fault, isn't normally a good process, although I will say among a jury of non-boaters, the "outrageous and dangerous" (their thoughts, not mine) speed would be far more likely to bother them than the "poor little helpless" boat without lights. I hope, but doubt seriously, that both boats were cited. I know in the moment where the important thing is no one killed or seriously injured it often is not done, but it sure can be helpful later in the process.
As to flywright testifying, if it went to court, could be a key witness as you have your speed estimate plus you have Doug corroborating it.
As in most accidents on the water, it took two faults, two mistakes for it to happen. Both are very clear. Boat 1 was anchored without proper lighting. Boat 2 was going too fast for conditions. Whether 25 is safe sometimes or ever at night is irrelevant as his speed on this night was too fast for him to see the other boat. Conditions perhaps including darkness, no radar on, no night vision, no lookout on the bow, whatever else.
The greatest influence over me operating a car or boat safely is the fear of my operation leading to serious injury or death of another. I would love to drive a car much faster sometimes However, if I was in a bad wreck killing someone and driving perfectly, it would be hard to deal with, but if that happened and I was driving too fast or recklessly, I don't know that I could ever deal with it. Doug is extremely lucky and I do hope he realizes that. Fault or no fault, had he hit only feet or perhaps even inches differently, he could have killed two persons that night. Had he done so, right and wrong wouldn't have mattered to him, he would have still had to live with that. An important part of safe driving to me is could I live with myself.
My mother had a customer who came to her beauty salon who had awful tremors. They weren't from a disease or neurological condition and, in fact, were better than they once were. 30 years earlier, she had backed out of her drive and backed into a kid who darted across, killing him. It hospitalized her for a couple of weeks and she was unable to work for a year. Seeing her tremors made a lasting impression on me. I don't ever want to feel like that.
That's why even with radar and night vision, you won't see me going that speed at night anywhere but well off shore. Am I capable of doing it safely? Probably. But then I also have to be able to live with myself.
Flywright. People who do the right things as you did that night, never feel like they did anything special. You heard a sound, you could have then ignored and gone on about your business. You got there and saw no one and you could have ignored and gone on about your business. You did what most of us would like to think we would have, but what many people every day do not do. When you do the right thing, you don't feel like it was extraordinary, but many people in our world don't do the right thing. You didn't know what you were going to see when you got to the site, but I do firmly believe, whatever it would have been, you would have done the right thing there. Good people choose to do what is right, whether it inconveniences them or whether it even has potential consequences to them. The choice seems easy to them. Still it deserves praise as every day a lot of people don't choose to do what is right.
Doing right isn't always dashing into a burning building or pushing an old lady out of the way of a speeding car. It really starts with simple things. You could have arrived and found one or two bodies in the boat or water and you would have done what you could to help them. You would have been in the position to do so as opposed to others who would have simply stayed put where they were and said "not my problem." I know you didn't post it here looking for praise.
A lot of people very fortunate that night. Those in both boats, and I hope both realize how fortunate they were, and flywright as well in the when he reached the scene he didn't see what he could have.
As to flywright testifying, if it went to court, could be a key witness as you have your speed estimate plus you have Doug corroborating it.
As in most accidents on the water, it took two faults, two mistakes for it to happen. Both are very clear. Boat 1 was anchored without proper lighting. Boat 2 was going too fast for conditions. Whether 25 is safe sometimes or ever at night is irrelevant as his speed on this night was too fast for him to see the other boat. Conditions perhaps including darkness, no radar on, no night vision, no lookout on the bow, whatever else.
The greatest influence over me operating a car or boat safely is the fear of my operation leading to serious injury or death of another. I would love to drive a car much faster sometimes However, if I was in a bad wreck killing someone and driving perfectly, it would be hard to deal with, but if that happened and I was driving too fast or recklessly, I don't know that I could ever deal with it. Doug is extremely lucky and I do hope he realizes that. Fault or no fault, had he hit only feet or perhaps even inches differently, he could have killed two persons that night. Had he done so, right and wrong wouldn't have mattered to him, he would have still had to live with that. An important part of safe driving to me is could I live with myself.
My mother had a customer who came to her beauty salon who had awful tremors. They weren't from a disease or neurological condition and, in fact, were better than they once were. 30 years earlier, she had backed out of her drive and backed into a kid who darted across, killing him. It hospitalized her for a couple of weeks and she was unable to work for a year. Seeing her tremors made a lasting impression on me. I don't ever want to feel like that.
That's why even with radar and night vision, you won't see me going that speed at night anywhere but well off shore. Am I capable of doing it safely? Probably. But then I also have to be able to live with myself.
Flywright. People who do the right things as you did that night, never feel like they did anything special. You heard a sound, you could have then ignored and gone on about your business. You got there and saw no one and you could have ignored and gone on about your business. You did what most of us would like to think we would have, but what many people every day do not do. When you do the right thing, you don't feel like it was extraordinary, but many people in our world don't do the right thing. You didn't know what you were going to see when you got to the site, but I do firmly believe, whatever it would have been, you would have done the right thing there. Good people choose to do what is right, whether it inconveniences them or whether it even has potential consequences to them. The choice seems easy to them. Still it deserves praise as every day a lot of people don't choose to do what is right.
Doing right isn't always dashing into a burning building or pushing an old lady out of the way of a speeding car. It really starts with simple things. You could have arrived and found one or two bodies in the boat or water and you would have done what you could to help them. You would have been in the position to do so as opposed to others who would have simply stayed put where they were and said "not my problem." I know you didn't post it here looking for praise.
A lot of people very fortunate that night. Those in both boats, and I hope both realize how fortunate they were, and flywright as well in the when he reached the scene he didn't see what he could have.
Should be the same but often isn't, partly due to multiple agencies and partly due to not witnessing and, as in this case, everyone being gone before they reached the scene.
Should have had a further investigation and, in my opinion, both cited.
In major cities now we see a lot of "no harm, no foul" calls on auto accidents. In many areas, law enforcement will not even come to the scene of the accident unless someone is hurt. They get to court and judge wants to see the police report, then yells that no one called the police, only to find out, they called and no police were sent to the scene and while no one hurt at the scene, the injuries surface afterwards.
Probably, but by who to be determined. Starting with just pinpointing in whose jurisdiction it happened and whether the state wildlife commission or the local law enforcement. Jurisdiction is often interesting and different in all areas. I use to bank at a branch that there was a wreck in the parking lot so they were going to call the police but needed to know if it was the front lot or side lot as they were in two different cities. Turns out that if someone tried to give them a bad check, they had to go to a different police department depending on whether they did so at the counter inside or at the drive through.
There was a nearby apartment complex and a friend called to report a mysterious guy walking around. The dispatcher asked where the person was and which way they were going. Was told they were about to cross a street and asked her to tell them when he got to the middle of the street. She did so. The dispatcher said, you need to call so and so because he's now out of our town.
dhays
Guru
- Joined
- May 26, 2015
- Messages
- 9,064
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Kinship
- Vessel Make
- North Pacific 43
Am I being too simplistic in thinking that since the boater hit another boat that he didn't see in time he was almost by definition going too fast for the conditions? Assuming he was keeping an adequate watch.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,731
- Location
- California Delta
- Vessel Name
- FlyWright
- Vessel Make
- 1977 Marshall Californian 34 LRC
I sure wouldn't argue against that analysis.
That was my feeling. Perhaps not too fast for some or in some circumstances, but too fast to see the boat long enough in advance to avoid it. His only defenses to too fast would be other things equally as bad for him.
I'd say you're... ahhh... "pretty much" spot on! Although, fact that the boat hit had no lights may well become a portion of the fault-debate; regarding whose actions [or lack thereof] represents what percent of fault for the accident.
It's great that there was little personal injury as result.
Yes, it doesn't relieve the boat with no lights of fault. Forgetting rules, forgetting laws or courts for a moment, and just go to common sense. Had boat without lights had them, this probably wouldn't have happened. Had other boat been going slower and watching better, this probably wouldn't have happened. It takes two to have an accident. It only takes one to avoid one.
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,356
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
That fits well with a legal phrase "res ipsa loquitur", which means "the thing speaks for itself". Of course it is rebuttable by other information.
Let me raise one other aspect, night vision and keeping a proper lookout. Right in your area of expertise but I think deserving of a separate thread.
psneeld
Guru
Not to me....if the vessel with no light had shown them, and that would have possibly prevented the incident, I would be at 80/20 against the unlit boat...maybe higher.
His only defense in my mind would be the under 7 meter rule, when anchoring out of busy areas that would relieve him of showing an anchor light.
His only defense in my mind would be the under 7 meter rule, when anchoring out of busy areas that would relieve him of showing an anchor light.
That will probably surface as an argument. The boat that was running insurer may take the stance, each pays for their own boat. They'll see that their insured boat gets fixed but may well deny any claim by the other boat. How it's settled financially isn't really important when compared to the lives that so easily could have been lost. If the boat that was anchored has no insurance, they they likely have a major challenge ahead.
That was close to my original thoughts however...
The other vessel has an equal burden to avoid a collision...Including / especially posting a lookout and traveling at a safe speed. Speed was obviously exceeding what would allow stopping or altering course to avoid collision.
It could have just as easily been a log, floating drum etc...Obviously unlit...That could have caused a life threatening collision
Not looking to escalate an argument...I offer the thoughts to get operators to consider both sides of the responsibility requirements.
On the water COLREG reqmts are very different than driving ashore
What if there had been a boat mistakenly adrift with no lights... would the speeding boat be less at fault for hitting it? What if the lights had been on but batt went dead... would the speeding boat be less at fault for hitting it? What if as ps mentioned re the 7 meter rule... would the speeding boat be less at fault for hitting it?
How can a speeding boat that does not see and avoid another boat, lights on or not, be without major [or maybe even near 100%] fault?
If the speeding boat had been going slow enough to, or had good enough spotlight to, or had a good enough lookout to realize there was an unlit boat to avoid there would have been no accident. Therefore in reality the speeding boat must have been prime cause for the collision, not the still boat with no lights.
How can a speeding boat that does not see and avoid another boat, lights on or not, be without major [or maybe even near 100%] fault?
If the speeding boat had been going slow enough to, or had good enough spotlight to, or had a good enough lookout to realize there was an unlit boat to avoid there would have been no accident. Therefore in reality the speeding boat must have been prime cause for the collision, not the still boat with no lights.
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
With all the flotsam from recent rains, it's a wonder why boaters go fast with limited visibility. ... Another vote for FD boats which cannot go so fast.
psneeld
Guru
That is one way to look at it....not mine.
There was a duty to show lights possibly....if so, that would have prevented the collision possibly.
In the case of extenuating circumstances, acts of God, whatever...then blame is reassigned...but doesn't necessarily shift all the way.
Otherwise, why show an anchor light if it's always the other guys fault?
Lay down on a highway and blame the driver that runs over you...careless driving....no fault of yours.
There was a duty to show lights possibly....if so, that would have prevented the collision possibly.
In the case of extenuating circumstances, acts of God, whatever...then blame is reassigned...but doesn't necessarily shift all the way.
Otherwise, why show an anchor light if it's always the other guys fault?
Lay down on a highway and blame the driver that runs over you...careless driving....no fault of yours.
Last edited:
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
All lighted up:
Last edited:
Benthic2
Guru
I would have to give considerably more blame to the boat that was actively being operated, than a boat that was anchored. As someone else said...if the object in his path wasn't a boat, he still would have crashed into it. Also, the Colregs state that a ( I'm paraphrasing here.....) power driven vessel has to avoid a vessel not under command...which I would think an anchored vessel would be.
psneeld
Guru
Cant use the COLREGS as the hammer if the other vessel wasn't in compliance...that's like saying you have to know which way to turn or hold course if the other isn't showing red and green.
And the COLREGS aren't about hitting objects, just other vessels that have duties, even at anchor.
And the COLREGS aren't about hitting objects, just other vessels that have duties, even at anchor.
CoLLEGes clearly covers reacts to AVOID hitting another vessel.
How would / others asses fault if two boats operating in daylight, clear day...collide?
The giveaway vessel didn't do what they should have...altered course to give way
The stand on vessel also has the reqmt to AVOID a collision in cases where other vessels aren't doing what that are "supposed" to do
Regs intentionally AVOID any "right of way" which would lay fault completely on those that don't comply
