posted 04-27-2003 11:37 PM ET (US)        

In thinking about this, I am curious as to what are the most common causes of serious boating accidents and deaths in the ocean involving boats in the 17 to 35 foot range. I am curios to hear your thoughts.

posted 04-28-2003 09:15 AM ET (US)            

I've seen some statistics that suggest the most common type of fatal boating accident involved capsizing, followed by falling overboard, and colliding with another vessel.

The primary type of accident in general is collison with another vessel, followed by collison with a fixed object, and then flooding or swamping.

posted 04-28-2003 01:03 PM ET (US)         

1. Alcohol
2. Alcohol
3. Alcohol
4. Alcohol
5. Not wearing a PFD

I occasionaly see crush injuries (from the hand being between the boat and the dock), lacerations from propellers (off to the OR!), and blunt head trauma (usually fatal). Inexperience and lack of judgement are the usual culprits, but almost every case we've had (covering a multi-county area with land and sea helicopter service) resulted from the operator's or passenger's intoxication.

Sal's son-in-law was a victim of the most dangerous occupation in the world,(according the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta) deck operations on a boat in the Bering Sea. Clearly, hypothermia and incredibly rough seas come into play in such a situation.

posted 04-28-2003 01:47 PM ET (US)            

Just this weekend a 12-year-old girl from Germany drowned in the Potomac River just upstream of Washington DC. She was canoeing with her family, and their canoe was swamped in some rapids (of which there are plenty; it could hardly come as a surprise). 60-degree water, no PFDs. Frankly, I think it's amazing they weren't all lost.

Wait, it IS Whaler-related! The rescue/recovery boat was a dark blue Whaler, about 24 feet. Looked like an Outrage, so that would make it what, a Guardian?

One more PFD story- about 10 years ago, I very nearly lost my 2-year-old daughter when she fell overboard, at anchor, from our 27-foot sailboat. She plopped into the murky Rhode River on the Chesapeake and disappeared from sight. No PFD, because we weren't underway. I was fishing around frantically, and was lucky enough to grab a handfull of hair, by which I unceremoneously yanked her sputtering back on deck. Scared the living sh** out of me, and it still does. Nobody's fault but mine- stupid, stupid, STUPID.

New PFD rules on my boats- if you're not an excellent swimmer, you wear the PFD before you come onto the dock. Experienced swimmers, any time the boat's in motion.

posted 04-28-2003 02:54 PM ET (US)            

I then said to my wife that that was one of the many reasons I purchased the boat that I did. There's enough things to worry about while I'm on the water, the boat sinking from under me is one thing I'd rather not think about.

posted 04-28-2003 05:42 PM ET (US)            

I have an acquaintance who has hauled in a few drowning victims and they have all been drinking and they fall over board with their "unit" hanging out of their pants/shorts, whatever.

Soggy

posted 04-29-2003 02:35 AM ET (US)            

http://www.insidesportfishing.com/MessageBoard/default.asp?CLID=1

posted 04-30-2003 09:16 PM ET (US)            

A boat cannot collide with a fixed object. A collision occurs when two moving objects make contact. If a boat makes contact with a fixed object it is referred to as an "allision". The boat is said to allide with the fixed object.

posted 04-30-2003 11:13 PM ET (US)            

And in one of my dictionaries, I see the words for collision as "... a violent rushing against; hitting or striking violently together...". And then the definition of a collision path as, "... a course taken by AN (my emphasis) object...".

But then, your attached article does "define' the 'word' "allision" as "... referring to a ship hitting a fixed object ...". Does the 'word' allision only apply to ships or boats?

What is this world coming to? Gosh - sure hope that hooter can straighten this word maze up.

And as always Jimh - thanks for your efforts and time. ------ Jerry/Idaho

posted 05-01-2003 08:06 AM ET (US)            

In the article jimh sited it states in the Endnotes "1. The term “allision” refers to the collision of a ship with a fixed object." Based on that definition an allision is a type of collision.

posted 05-01-2003 08:52 AM ET (US)            

In December of 1997 at the southern entrance of the Detroit River the 635-foot ship BUFFALO struck the Detroit River Light, causing considerable damage to its bow. The light, situated on a granite and concrete foundation in 22-feet of water, sustained only minimal damage.

posted 05-01-2003 12:46 PM ET (US)         

I have heard many versions of that story. The most recent was e mailed to me with a british ship and some other country's light house.

posted 05-01-2003 01:31 PM ET (US)            

This urban legend has been debunked. See:

http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm

Please send your business card to Craig Shergold who is not dying in Europe (another urban legend).

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/children/shergold.htm

posted 05-03-2003 10:55 AM ET (US)            

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. - The Coast Guard?s examination of the boat from which two men disappeared offered no clues as to what secrets the vast, seemingly unforgiving sea may be hiding.

Officers with the Marine Safety Group here concluded that the 24-foot powerboat Mean Green was not in a collision, but the investigation left the officials without any indication of what went wrong. And at press time, Randy Stone, 53, and his son Ben Stone, 25, were still missing.

Leslie Stone, of Ventura, Calif., called the Coast Guard April 20 when her husband and son did not return from a fishing trip. Mrs. Stone reported that the men had launched Mean Green April 18 from Ventura Harbor for an overnight trip to the Channel Islands.

On April 24, the fishing vessel Victory Sea Horse found the green-hulled powerboat overturned 11 miles offshore. Officials went to the scene where Victory Sea Horse found Mean Green capsized. Only the boat?s bow and stem jutted above the surface.

However, finding the boat did not spark a secondary search for the men. The Coast Guard searches for people, not property, a spokesperson said. Officers searched for what they believe was a reasonable, prudent length of time - a good long time, a spokesman said.

The Coast Guard launched a search for the Stones upon receiving Mrs. Stone?s report. Coast Guard units responding included rescue boats from Station Channel Islands, two helicopters, an airplane, and the 87-foot cutters Narwhal and Halibut.

With no results as of April 22, Coast Guard officials suspended the three-day search. The effort spanned more than 2,600 square miles. Officers combed the sea lanes between Ventura and the Channel Islands and around Anacapa and Santa Cruz islands.

Weather conditions during the search included high winds and heavy seas. Low water temperature, combined with high winds, can quicken the onset of hypothermia and lessen the time anyone can survive in the water, officials said.

?The sea can be very unpredictable,? said Petty Officer Louis Hebert. Despite taking every precaution, there is still an element of danger, the inherent risk of the sea, he said.

A commercial towing company salvaged Mean Green and towed it back to Ventura Harbor. Investigators examined the boat at length but could only determine that it had not been in a collision. They could not determine if a mechanical malfunction may have been responsible for what happened or why the men went missing.

posted 05-03-2003 08:20 PM ET (US)            

"Allision. The running of one vessel into or against another, as distinguished from a collision, i.e., the running of two vessels against each other. But this distinction is not very carefully observed."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition
Nolan & Connolly, eds.
1979, West Publishing Co.
St. Paul, Minn.

or, as an atty might cite,

Black.Dict.5th (1979) at 69, 239

Seems as though jimh is both right and wrong at the same time...par for the course in my business.

posted 05-04-2003 06:22 PM ET (US)            

Leggat Estate v Leggat

(March 30, 2001) No. 1954/97 & 3419/98 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), [2001] O.J. No. 1301

This case arose out of a collision between a pleasure craft and a rock face in Lake Rosseau, Ontario. As a result of the collision two passengers were injured, one fatally. These actions were commenced against the owner of the pleasure craft and the driver of the pleasure craft, the owner’s brother. The Court found the driver liable in that he was operating the vessel at an unsafe speed, failed to maintain a proper lookout, and failed to properly navigate the vessel. Interestingly, the Court also found the owner liable even though the owner was not in the boat at the time of the accident and the operator was apparently an experienced operator of small pleasure craft. The Court held that Part IX of the Canada Shipping Act clearly indicates the intention of Parliament to make owners of small vessels liable for the fault of their vessels and that since the vessel was at fault it followed that the owner was at fault. On the issue of limitation, the Court found that the operator could limit his liability but that the owner could not. The Court held that the owner was at fault or privity in that he failed to properly consider the trip to be undertaken by his brother. The Court said that the owner should have obtained an undertaking from the operator that the boat would be operated at less than planing speed until the rock face was rounded and then at higher speed with the operator looking above the windshield.

Canadian Salt Company Limited v The "Irving Cedar" et al.,
(September 6, 2000) No. T-689-95 (F.C.T.D.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1410

This action arose out of a collision between a ship and a wharf that occurred when the ship was performing ice breaking operations for the Plaintiff in the vicinity of the wharf. The Defendants denied liability on the grounds that they were not negligent and further relied upon an exclusion clause and time for suit provision contained in the contract with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff denied that the clauses were part of the contract and further argued that on their proper interpretation the clauses did not apply to exclude the Defendants’ liability or extinguish the claim. On the issue of negligence the Court seemed to accept that there was a presumption of negligence on the part of the Defendants given that the ship had struck a stationary object. In any event, the Court did find as a fact that the Defendants had been negligent. With respect to the application of the conditions, the Court found that the conditions applied. In reaching this conclusion the Court emphasized that the conditions had been provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendants together with their quotation and that the Plaintiff had accepted that quotation with only minor changes. The Court accepted that there may have been a subsequent conversation between the Plaintiff and Defendants in which the Plaintiff advised some terms of the contract were not acceptable, however, such conversation occurred after the quotation had been accepted and therefore after the contract had been entered into. The exclusion clause relied upon by the Defendants was as follows:

"The tug owner shall not in any circumstances be liable for any loss or damage suffered by the Hirer or caused to or sustained by the Tow in consequence of loss or damage howsoever caused to or sustained by the Tug or any property on board the tug."

The Court noted that such clauses must be interpreted against the interest of the person who made it. The Court considered that the clause was unclear and ambiguous and held that it did not apply to relieve the Defendants from liability for damage caused by their negligence to the wharf.

The Court next considered the notice and time for suit clause of the contract which provided that notice of a claim had to be given in writing within six months and that suit must be brought within one year. The Court held that this clause was most clear and that as the Plaintiff had not brought suit within one year its action was extinguished. In the result, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

I, for one, intend to use "allision" in a deposition at the earliest possible opportunity, if only to see the puzzled look on the insurance company's slut (ooops! make that defense counsel). But I don't think I will use it at trial...who needs more than the usual amount of mockery from the judge?

Tony