posted 03-21-2012 07:06 PM ET (US)            

It is my understanding that in some states, the liability of such an installation extends to the installer - so no matter how safe YOU are with the boat, if the next owner is less safe and has an accident, theoretical liability could go back to the original installer...especially if they're a viable business entity with deep pockets or nice insurance policies...

So....ya gotta do it yourself or find a shade-tree guy who is broke and isn't worried about no stinkin' lawsuit 'cause he doesn't have deep pockets anyway....

:)

posted 03-21-2012 09:45 PM ET (US)            

My question is:

posted 03-22-2012 08:09 AM ET (US)            

There is no "issue" with insurance. You just have to purchase the insurance you need. If it costs more to insure a boat with an engine whose power exceeds the ratings, that is not an issue--that is a cost.

posted 03-22-2012 02:06 PM ET (US)            

The dealer in question sold me the motor, so I suppose he would have been slightly more motivated to rig it than had he not sold me the motor. The insurance companies in question were, in order, Liberty Mutual, State Farm, and now, Travelers. (I re-quote my insurance on a regular basis).

posted 03-22-2012 09:12 PM ET (US)            

The answer depends on how conservative the Manufacturer was in providing the capacity plate information and/or the size of the boat. Also, there is no requirement for a max hp rating on a 20+ foot boat...

For the 18' Outrage, if you do the Coast Guard calculation for max HP - you come up with something just shy of 180 HP. If I remember correctly, it's 178 or something like that. I justified twin 90's for the following: 1) it was within 5 HP of the Coast Guard calculation for the hull and 2) The stability of the ride with twin engines is improved at high speeds due to two "feet" in the water instead of one. Think about sitting on a unicycle vs a bicycle at high speed.

We have documented one case here of a Boston Whaler just magically changing the HP rating when a slightly bigger engine (that in a coincidence that keeps people like George Noory [ref: coasttocoastam.com ] up at night, was just made available by a sister company) came on the market....and we've seen the ratings on several models go either up or down over time, with no design changes in the hull.

...so not even the manufacturers respect the "ultimate authority" of the capacity plate so long as they play within the Coast Guard formula guidelines.

Your current/chosen company may not offer insurance, but others will - and having more limited choices in insurance isn't really a problem with powering beyond the capacity plate rating, per se, it's more of an inconvenience.

Ultimately, the decision is still up to you.

posted 03-22-2012 09:39 PM ET (US)            

Also many of BW's ratings were based on engines available at the time of design. The 22 Outrage was rated at 240hp when the biggest engine available was the OMC 235. Now a 250hp single would be a perfect replacement engine for that hull.

The 18 Outrage as already mentioned is another example.

posted 03-22-2012 09:40 PM ET (US)            

Here is a summary: To protect against exposure to excess verdicts, many individuals carry Personal Liability Umbrella Policies (PLUP). These policies add an additional layer of protection over the auto insurance, homeowners or other liability policies. For those with significant financial assets and potential personal exposure to liability in the unfortunate event that they cause an accident and injuries to others, failure to obtain a PLUP is almost inexcusable. For those injured in a very serious accident, you just keep your fingers crossed and hope that the other party had the financial resources and the foresight to obtain this coverage.

posted 03-24-2012 06:57 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The rating is a recommendation, not a legal requirement.

---

This is bad advice. The manufacturer's maximum horsepower rating is part of the boating regulations in some states. For example, in Ohio the regulations contain this provision:

quote:

---

Capacity Plates

(ORC 1547.39 & ORC 1547-40)
No person shall operate or permit operation of a watercraft in excess of any of the stated limits on the capacity plate.

---

posted 03-25-2012 12:46 PM ET (US)            

The first is criminal liability. As Jim points out above, some states have specific laws forbidding the operation of a watercraft in excess of any of the stated limits on the capacity plate. I assume with some assurance that violations of this statute would involve criminal penalties, perhaps a fine of some sort for an 'infraction' (like a traffic ticket), though there might even be misdemeanors charged, but I doubt that very much.

The second concern involves potential civil liability for personal and/or property damages which occur while a boat is 'overpowered,' and the possibility that one's insurance carrier might refuse to make good on a claim arising out of such an occurrence. Let's examine this problem:

At civil law, the violation of a relevant statute constitutes 'negligence per se,' which means that the legislature has determined as a matter of public policy that a duty exists to obey the statute. As we will see, a 'duty,' in the context of negligence, is a legal word of art critical for establishing liability for negligence.

So what IS negligence, anyway? Negligence (and concomitant financial liability for damages) arises when one has a DUTY to the public of REASONABLE CARE and BREACHES that DUTY, which PROXIMATELY (directly) CAUSES injury to another party. Looks pretty simple and straightforward at first glance, eh? But each of those capitalized words -- DUTY, REASONABLE CARE, BREACH, PROXIMATE CAUSATION -- is a necessary element of negligence, and each must be proved by evidence before a person can be found liable and financially responsible for his/her acts.

Thus (as lawyers love to say), in the context of this topic, to be held liable for negligence if one's boat is powered by a motor whose horsepower exceeds that provided by the boat's capacity plate, evidence would have to be presented showing that the 'overpowered' motor PROXIMATELY CAUSED the occurrence. It would not be enough to merely establish that the boat's owner (the defendant) had a DUTY (whether statutory or not) of REASONABLE CARE to operate his/her boat with a less powerful motor, and that he/her BREACHED that duty by 'overpowering' the craft, even though someone (the plaintiff) had been injured during the occurrence. The critical element, without which no finding of negligence responsibility against the defendant could be obtained, would be whether the large motor PROXIMATELY CAUSED the occurrence.

Examples: 1) A classic MONTAUK powered by a sweet Yamaha F150, a motor which greatly exceeds the horsepower rating on the boat's capacity plate, is involved in a collision with a BAYLINER, whose skipper was severely injured. There is no clear evidence as to which boat had the right-of-way. The BAYLINER's skipper sues the owner/operator of the MONTAUK, asserting that the MONTAUK was overpowered and such overpowering constituted 'negligence per se' according to laws of the state where the collision occurred. Without further evidence, will the BAYLINER prevail? No! There is no showing that the power of the MONTAUK's motor had anything whatsoever to do with the collision. There was no PROXIMATE CAUSATION, and without this element there is no negligence liability.

Example 2) Same situation, except this time there IS clear evidence that the MONTAUK had the right-of-way before the collision. However, there also exists clear evidence that the MONTAUK was acting squirrely, out of control, porpoising and chine walking all over the place, and the BAYLINER's experts present convincing evidence that the large, heavy, overpowered motor caused the MONTAUK to go out of control and slam into the BAYLINER, which was unable to avoid the collision. Here the element missing in my first example -- PROXIMATE CAUSATION -- does exist, and the fact of the boat being overpowered would probably result in the MONTAUK's owner/operator being found liable for his/her negligence and thus financially responsible for the injuries to the BAYLINER's skipper and damages to his boat.

Bottom line: the mere fact of a watercraft being powered by a motor whose horsepower rating exceeds that specified on the boat's capacity plate is NOT necessarily determinative. For civil liability to attach, there would have to be a showing that the extra power directly CAUSED the occurrence.

But it must be remembered in this analysis that 1) criminal liability might be involved even if there is no civil liability; and 2) unless one's insurance carrier is informed about the overpowering, and one can conclusively prove that such notification has been made, coverage might well be challenged by the carrier with possibly disastrous financial results to the boat owner.

Hope this helps. Please remember that I'm NOT giving legal advice here, but just talking hypothetically about some very basic, general legal concepts regarding negligence. I DO NOT recommend or condone overpowering Boston Whaler watercraft, and many of you at this website know that I've actually been accused on several occasions of underpowering my own boats (e.g., Katama 16/50 hp Yamaha 4/s; Outrage 18/115 Yamaha 4/s; current '82 Montauk/70 hp Suzuki 4/s, etc).

posted 03-25-2012 01:33 PM ET (US)            

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that according to the Boat and Safety Act of either 1973 or 1978, (paraphrasing) that a person or organization who substantially changes the weight or stability of a boat is considered a manufacturer and is subject to the same liabilities as such. That puts a lot of responsibility onto whoever installs an ouboard on a boat. They would be considered a manufacturer. That regulation caused a lot of insurance increases back in the day and both OMC and Merc expanded education to their dealers.

Dealers have even been held responsible if they sold just the motor to an individual and that individual installed the larger than recommended outboard himself and had an accident. The courts ruled that the dealer may have known on what boat is was being installed.

posted 03-25-2012 04:13 PM ET (US)            

Your boat, do as you please. If a dealer objects, take your buisness elswhere.
In the past I repowered a 1974 Montauk II with a 115 OMC ocean pro. It was and still is an excellent and safe rig, and the boat was purchased new with a 115 in 1974.

posted 03-26-2012 10:29 AM ET (US)            

For those who mumble about the advantages of some other legal system, or make vague references to the purported advantages of "European" law (which nation's brand, one is forced to query), please provide specifics, i.e., which country, which specific law or rule of civil procedure, Napoleonic Code or not, etc, etc.

I suspect that I, like most lawyers, moan and groan about perceived problems with our system more than most laypersons, just because I've had to deal close-up with the system for half my working life. Sure it could be streamlined (we've been forced to wait up to five years to get relatively simple cases before the court); sure some of its procedures are clumsy and archaic; and God knows some of the high court's rulings are burdensome and ridiculous; but the clunky old bitch keeps pluggin' along, and more often than not justice gets done, eventually.
And guess what, all you nay-sayers: our U.S. legal system, ultimately based on our ever-evolving constitution, is the envy of the rest of the world, notwithstanding its imperfections.

Tony

posted 03-26-2012 11:57 AM ET (US)            

There is one legitimate reason to overpower: If you are running twins, it is very advantageous to be able to plane on one engine in the case of mechanical failure of one the other one.

posted 03-26-2012 07:42 PM ET (US)            

Once again, it's not the lawyers fault. They are simply making the most of the rules they are given to play by. I would do the same, were I in their shoes.

posted 03-27-2012 08:40 AM ET (US)            

Regarding your hypothetical, if you're speeding and you run over a pedestrian, an "honest judge" would not automatically throw out a case against you regardless of whether or not your car had been modified. Furthermore, if you modify your vehicle in a manner to make it more dangerous to pedestrians, and you then go out and run down some pedestrians, you should be held liable for your actions, regardless of whether you live in the U.S. or Europe.

Taking your hypothetical one step further, let's say that there's a statute which prohibits the use of slick racing tires on a vehicle operated on the street. If you put slicks on your car, drive down to the mall in the rain and end up hitting a pedestrian because your slicks couldn't stop your vehicle in time, guess what? You're negligent per se, and you're going to be held liable for the damage you caused. Do you really see that as unfair?

With regard to a boat, if there is a statute or regulation which prohibits overpowering a boat and you do it anyways, you're going to be held liable for any damages which directly result from your decision to ignore the law. Again, do you really see that as unfair? Let's say you overpower your boat, and you then take a couple of friends for a ride. Assume also that the friends have no idea you overpowered the boat. Now let's say that during the ride you lose control of the boat because you're going faster than the boat was designed to travel, you flip the boat and your friends get hurt. Guess what? Again, you're going to be held liable for the consequences of your decision to ignore the law. If a dealership chose to ignore the law and helped you overpower your boat, the dealership will also likely be held liable for the resulting damages. In such a case, liability would be apportioned between you and the dealership based on your respective percentage of fault.

In my hypothetical, it is unlikely that boat manufacturer or motor manufacturer would be held liable for any damages. They may initially be brought into the lawsuit by the plaintiff, but nothing in the facts set forth above would provide any basis for liability. If there was in fact no basis for liability but the boat manufacturer or motor manufacturer were sued, they could move for dismissal or for summary judgment, which would most likely be granted. They would also have the option of seeking to recover their attorney fees and court costs if the claims against them were frivolous.

posted 03-27-2012 10:03 AM ET (US)            

I like a good lawyer joke as much as the next guy. I don't, however, like the broad generalization of all lawyers and judges as amoral, unethical, parasites getting rich off of a broken system.

posted 03-27-2012 10:39 AM ET (US)            

Austria, Azerbaijan, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vatican, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, France, Croatia, Montenegro, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, Estonia.

posted 03-27-2012 10:41 AM ET (US)         

Simple as that eh?

All these years, decades, centuries of lawyer jokes have absolutely no basis in facts resulting from experience.

It's all just because we simpletons just dont understand.

LOL

Who is lumping ALL lawyers and judges as immoral parasites?

posted 03-27-2012 10:44 AM ET (US)            

Then he says;
Don't rely on press releases from the insurance industry or the Republican Party about "runaway juries" and frivolous lawsuits.

Well, here is a Republican joke;

Why do Republicans love doing laundry?

They're naturals at separating the whites from the colors.

posted 03-27-2012 10:46 AM ET (US)         

Make his case! LOL

You guys are killing yourselves with your posts here.

posted 03-27-2012 11:39 AM ET (US)            

The person lumping all American lawyers and judges as immoral parasites is Peter. He's done in it this thread and in half a dozen other threads where any question of tort liability or products liability law comes up. It's clear from his posts that most of his apparently very-limited knowledge on the subject comes from insurance industry and tort reform advocate group press releases (some of which were no doubt crudely disguised as news reports).

I'm not a personal injury or products liability lawyer, but I studied the tort law system and tort reform extensively when I was in law school. While there are certainly people who would like to see the system changed, the system is not "broken." Like just about everything else in America, the people who make the most noise about changing the system are the people who will benefit financially from making the changes they are seeking.

posted 03-27-2012 12:31 PM ET (US)            

I think you make a good point K Albus !!
There are bad apples in any profession and the legal system sure has it's share of them.

posted 03-27-2012 03:23 PM ET (US)            

First, I need to lament the lack of inflection in the typed word, because while you correctly label my disdain for US torts, I do not share the same disdain for lawyers. Please not read between the lines, when I tell everyone not to blame the lawyers. It is to be taken at face value when it comes from me. That is a large area where I differ from everyone else who blames outrageous tort cases on "the lawyers". I do not. I am an evolutionist, who fully understands how populations of organisms ebb and flow with the favorability of conditions. Take away the predators, and the prey flourishes, that kind of thing. It is clear to me that our world-leading per capita lawyer count, (in future arguments, please do not ignore that I said "per capita"), is due to the fact that our tort system is one of "favorable conditions", for lawyering. That fact, in my mind is absolutely NOT an argument against lawyers. It is a simple fact, with no bias possible or intended.

You go on to cite examples, that as you presented them, are perfectly legitimate for liability trials, and I would support them as stated by you. My problem with US torts comes when irrelevant facts are brought in, and allowed by the judges, and not summarily dismissed. I have a problem when a case is built on a false premise. So should you. Sooo, should a boater who put an "overpower" motor on his boat be brought up on negligence allegations if he causes harm that could not have otherwise been caused if his boat had normal legal power? Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever with that. Should the same boater boater be held negligent for backing over one of his charges, (and accident that has nothing whatsoever to do with his overpowered motor)? Yes--obviously. BUT not if the plaintiff's attorney bases his case on the overpowered motor. Frankly, he shouldn't even bring it up at all because it might prejudice the jury against the defendant. But you know darned good and well, the fact that a boat is overpowered WILL be brought up in a boat accident trial even if the "overpowered'ness" had NOTHING to do with the accident--such as in an idling, "back over the swimmer case". With our welcoming and permissive tort system, a plaintiff's attorney should be fired for incompetence if he fails to try to bias the jury by presenting the "overpowered" argument even in an idle-speed accident. Do you not agree?

A concrete example:

A few weeks ago we went rounds here on CWW over a case where it is alleged that:
1) The driver backed his boat towards his swimming crew member
and
2) That swimming crew member swam toward the back of the motor until she contacted it, and was maimed

IF THOSE TWO FACTS ARE CORRECT, then 100 percent of the blame lies between the two. Any other parties charged by the plaintiff, are charged under false premise, and an honest judge should throw out the case. Yet as we all know, reality presents a different picture. Our own insurance expert here at CWW who has presumably seen these cases before cited for us, chapter and verse, a litany of parties who had NOTHING to do with the accident, who WILL be implicated. That is so wrong, there aren't (decent) words to describe it.

Further, I blame the fact that:
- Toyota Yaris's (tiny sub-compact), that was engineered to tow 1000Kg, (2200lbs), is allowed to do so in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and NOT approved for towing ANY weight at all, here. They are identical.
http://www.belovedcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/toyota-yaris.jpg

-I can't walk into Home Depot and buy an Electrolux FlyMo, (google it) like I can in Eur/Aus/Nz

-I can't go to a professional race, and stand at track level, close enough to be hurt by flying cars and debris, like they can in Eur/Aus/NZ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ieRNmgxiA
Just watch the first 30 seconds and look at the spectators, if you are bored watching the best wheelman alive today.

-there was talk of canceling the Reno air races after the fatal crash last September that killed spectators as well as the pilot

-can't buy one of these here and drive it legally and fully insured, on the street: http://gadgetopia.com/images/ariel_atom.jpg
or one of these:
http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/22490/tn_radical_2-L.jpg

-I can go on and on--and on

I blame this state of affairs on US tort law, and will continue to do so, until somebody provides a convincing argument as to why I shouldn't. It feeds my disdain for US tort. I am an egomaniac who does not like being wrong. If I am wrong that the reason we can't tow 2200lbs with the Toyota Yaris in the USA, like the Europeans can, is fear of liability, give me the real reason.

posted 03-27-2012 04:27 PM ET (US)            

Hell, a lot of folks proudly consider themselves "self-covered", and don't bother with insurance at all. That's fine for them, but the sh#ts for others they might harm, unless the uninsured person is filthy rich. Thus the rationale for mandatory automobile insurance laws in most states. And thus the rationale for mandated health insurance coverage (which is being debated by our Supreme Court even as we speak): I sure don't want my tax dollars to pay the hospital bills for some uninsured idiot who spends the rest of his life in a brain-damaged coma after crashing his motorcycle driving without a helmet or medical insurance, wearing a greasy tee-shirt inscribed with a "Freedom!" logo and an American flag.

Anyway, hope my geography lesson above was of interest for some of the members here who continually contrast what they assert to by a better "European" legal system [sic] with our own. Haven't seen a response to that yet, but then why aren't I surprised.

Tony

posted 03-27-2012 04:50 PM ET (US)            

The Yaris was engineered to tow 1000Kg, (2200lbs). Period. In Europe, I will tow up to but not more than 1000Kg, (2200lbs) with a Yaris, because I have Toyota's blessing to do so in Europe, and will have no trouble at all getting insured to do so because that fact will likely not be used against me in a civil liability trial. Here in this country, I would not in a million years tow with a Yaris, (any weight at all), because despite the fact that the US version was also engineered to tow 1000Kg, (2200lbs), Toyota, out of fear of civil liability suits IN THE USA ONLY, has decided to ban any and all towing with it. They do no such thing in their Eur/Aus/Nz Yarises--because they do not fear civil liability repercussion in those places the way they do here.

Those "racy" cars I linked to in Europe are NOT race cars. They are street cars that are bought at a dealership, licensed, insured on the spot with the same carrier that insured you when you drove to the dealership, and driven away by the owner just the same as you would a new Toyota Tacoma here. They are not available that way here, and are probably uninsurable here except through hideously expensive channels like Lloyds of London.

-Peter

posted 03-27-2012 06:08 PM ET (US)            

http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/an86carrera/ Porsche%20Twin%20Turbo/?action=view¤t=DSC_1147.jpg

Pretty sick car and the insurance is about $500/yr. Way, way less than Europe's insurance cost for that kind of HP, that's why they need one of those lower HP open cars (but when could you drive that in rainy England). I know in Italy, there is a charge of 10 Euro/HP over 300, for the Turbo Carrera 1200 Euro/yr more than my last Carrera. Mine went up only about $20/yr for this one.

posted 03-27-2012 06:19 PM ET (US)            

That same hull with two 90 HP outboards (180 HP total) reached....

wait for it...

....

47-50 MPH.

Overpowered it might have been, but I'll tell you, it was a hell of a lot more stable at 50 MPH with twins than it was with a single....much more control with the twin setup...

call me a bad ass if you will, but it really was a pretty modest "hot rod".

posted 03-27-2012 08:02 PM ET (US)            

Regarding the imitation race cars you linked to, I'm willing to bet that those are not street legal in the U.S. due to a lack of safety equipment required by various statutes and regulations. That's got nothing to do with the tort law system. That's your duly elected legislators deciding what's best for you.

Regarding rally style races, I'm 100% certain that there are such races around the U.S. where you can stand on or next to the course as a spectator. If you do so, and you get hurt, you can sue the race organizers and promoters, but your ability to collect a large judgment is going to be severely hampered by your own contributory or comparative negligence.

posted 03-27-2012 08:54 PM ET (US)            

"Finally, regarding the boating accident case that was discussed here a couple of months ago, there are way too many factors involved to give any kind of simplified analysis. It is not a simple black-and-white case, regardless of how you may see it. A lot of mistakes were made by a lot of people, including the injury victim. It's a complex case, but I'm sure the system will sort it out. I'm also fairly certain that if the injured woman ends up collecting anything, she would be willing to give it all back in exchange for avoiding the accident in the first place."

If you believe what you say here then why in the hell are those POS laywers suing the prop manufactuer ??

posted 03-27-2012 09:52 PM ET (US)            

If you can tow 2200 lbs. with a Yaris, I will eat my shirt, pants and shoes. The fact is my Tacoma double cab is rated for 3500 lbs., is the TRD package, and struggles to pull 2200 lbs. at freeway speed.

WHO WOULD WANT TO TOW A TON WITH A YARIS? WHO WOULD FEEL ANGRY ABOUT BEING DENIED THAT OPPORTUNITY?

I would love to see a Yaris get to freeway speed with 4 morbidly obese passengers, before I'd hook a trailer up to it.

posted 03-27-2012 09:55 PM ET (US)            

Sebring, probably one of the most famous racecourses in the country you can watch races from track side. Just a few tires and a 4ft concrete barrier in front of you and impending danger. Here are some pics of myself and my daughter running some hot laps with her friend in his Spec. Mazda during a testing session at Sebring a couple of years ago. Never was even asked to sign a waver.[urlhttp://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/floridaboy2053/race%20car%20at%20Sebring/[/url]

posted 03-28-2012 01:53 AM ET (US)            

Second, you've got me and my personality all kinds of wrong, mate. I'm a rule follower by nature. I don't speed or even get parking tickets. Im pretty much of a tee totaling nerdy-dad type. Never been arrested never tried drugs, blah blah blah. I do what I do because my very nature is to be a compliant, rule follower. I'm the unpopular guy on my race forums who argues against rules that would make my class faster, (and more dangerous and expensive).

Say, don't you tow with a smallish car? Or are you kidding about that?

posted 03-28-2012 04:16 AM ET (US)            

Here's one I just read:

quote:

---

What's Wrong With This Picture
A recent test by Autobild sought to find the German-market vehicle that could tow the most kilos per euro. Third place (at€13.36 euros per kilo) went to the AWD 1.6 TDI Golf Variant, which is tow-rated at 1.8 tons on the German market (first and second went to the Tiguan and CR-V). Though the American-market Golf TDI has far more power than Autobild’s value-hauler podium finisher, Volkswagen continues to send tow-rating curious Americans messages like this one:

[QUOTE]Thank you for visiting the Volkswagen website. We appreciate your
inquiry regarding the capability of using your Volkswagen for towing
purposes.

Volkswagen does not recommend a passenger vehicle be used to tow.

---

Source:
http:/ / www. thetruthaboutcars. com/ 2010/ 01/ whats-wrong-with-this-pi cture-the-great-american-towing-conspiracy-lives-edition/

Don't shoot the messenger please. The comments section at the bottom of the page makes for some very enlightening reading.

Still open to plausible reasons for the duplicity--outside fear of liability.

-Peter

posted 03-28-2012 09:16 AM ET (US)            

And why do lawyers like torts so much? Do they also like rigging boats & Yaris's (or is it Yarii if plural)? So many questions; my simple mind can't keep it straight.

Good thing we have Peter here to edumicate us simple folks; he's wicked smart.

I like torts, especially raspberry torts. IBTL-ILBT.

posted 03-28-2012 12:19 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I forgot to ask...
Hey Mike Kub, did this post answer your question?

---

There were 25 posts/answers posted in this thread before my first post was made, including at least one by a product liability attorney. Hopefully that was enough for Mike to get his answer. It was enough for me to get an answer had I asked the question.

My point was merely to put some fear into Mike that in MY OPINION, if he overpowers his boat and has ANY accident with it, the fact it was overpowered WILL be used against him or the installer, even if his accident has nothing to do with the "overpowered'ness" of his boat--such as an idle-power incident, like backing over a swimmer.

Anyone wanna reassure Mike that I'm wrong about that? Lawyers?

posted 03-28-2012 12:25 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

My point was merely to put some fear into Mike that in MY OPINION, if he overpowers his boat and has ANY accident with it, the fact it was overpowered WILL be used against him or the installer, even if his accident has nothing to do with the "overpowered'ness" of his boat--such as an idle-power incident, like backing over a swimmer.

---

Peter -- I agree that that opinion is yours.

posted 03-28-2012 01:33 PM ET (US)            

Please review my lengthy comment halfway through this discussion if you're still confused about negligence liability. This IS a relatively confusing matter, since as I suggested while there might be 'negligence per se' if one is involved in an accident while operating an overpowered boat, that's not necessarily the end of the story. 'Proximate causation' (was the overpowered motor the direct cause of the incident) is determinative, no matter what the capacity plate states.

Anyway, best of luck to all, and I agree with Tom: be careful and ENJOY!

posted 03-28-2012 05:20 PM ET (US)            

"...but all cars towing here are limited to 55mph our freeways too--so that weak sauce fails to flavor the beef." [my emphasis]

Anyway, old bud, git yer butt up to our NorCal rendezvous this coming May 20th weekend (with or without your sweet Alert), and we'll hash some of this stuff out in person while we cruise, salmon fish, imbibe, and scarf all kinds of yummy seafood.

posted 03-28-2012 06:39 PM ET (US)            

Also, no special license is required to pull a trailer in these parts, and its not uncommon to see trailer loads that are clearly unsafe for the tow vehicle.

posted 03-28-2012 08:50 PM ET (US)            

Where are our European friends any way. Do they agree with Peter? Maybe they don't want to get involved in our silly arguments. Probably a good idea.

I have a feeling they like to overpower their boats in Australia though. I've seen some crazy fast boats on You Tube coming from Down Under. What say mates?

rich

posted 03-28-2012 10:28 PM ET (US)            

At the risk of winding up Gila/Lizard again over yet another reference to being a new boater... Since I bought my first ever boat in the summer of 2008, I have towed up and down CA101 from Santa Barbara to San Francisco, 101 and I405 from Santa Barbara to San Diego a grip of times, and I15 and I40 between SoCal and Needles, CA and Vegas--some pretty desolate and remote stretches of actual interstate, and every sign I've looked at says something like, "autos with trailers 55mph maximum". I assumed that since these were also federal interstates, that the rule applied nationwide. Gila, do you think my 3 1/2 years as a boater qualifies me to no longer claim novice status? Personally, I feel I have a LOT yet to learn. I still haven't motored out to Catalina or the Channel Islands yet. That will be my biggest boating adventure by far, when it finally happens.

posted 03-28-2012 10:52 PM ET (US)            

Frankly, I would never comment on your boating experience, it is something that you post, relentlessly and for what point, is unclear.

posted 03-28-2012 10:53 PM ET (US)            

Do a google search using the string, "autos with trailers 55". I didn't. base down every link, but there were all kinds of states that popped out in the link previews. Since I live in CA, here's a quote from a motorhome forum that came up in the first page of my search results:

quote:

---

In California there are two different towing speed restriction signs. One says "all vehicles when towing 55 mph". This sign is easy to understand. The second sign says "trucks 3 or more axels and autos with trailers 55 mph"

---

This is ENTIRELY consistent with what I have seen pretty much everywhere I have towed.

posted 03-28-2012 11:15 PM ET (US)            

Anyhow Gila, re towing speeds in CA, straight from the source:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/70mph.htm

quote:

---

California Highways with 70 MPH Speed Limits

The California Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol will implement 70 MPH speed limits on the following Interstate and Non-Interstate freeway segments. These 70 MPH segments are exceptions to the State's general maximum speed limit of 65 MPH. Autos with trailers and trucks are still limited to 55 MPH as specified in California Vehicle Code 22406.

---

Bolding mine.

If you've been towing faster than that, and haven't been caught, maybe you've been lucky?

posted 03-29-2012 12:24 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Peter, last time I checked there were no signs on the road telling me to drive 55 with a trailer. That includes most of the 40+ states that I have driven in. I understand your position on this(these)subjects. Keep it real.

---

This is what the signs look like, Gila (and other interested parties):
http://www.crosscountryroads.com/Images/CA%20I%2040%20W/DSC03787.JPG

I see these all over CA freeways. Maybe CA is one of the handful you missed?

posted 03-29-2012 05:13 AM ET (US)            

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/trailer-speed-limits/

posted 03-29-2012 05:49 AM ET (US)            

It states that only boats less than 20 ft. are required not to be overpowered as per the capacity plate.

http://www.boat-ed.com/florida/handbook/book.html#page28

Did my '61 13 foot Whaler ever have a capacity plate when it was built? I know my '59 14' Sea Fury never did.

posted 03-29-2012 10:39 AM ET (US)         

Lizzy getting schooled again.

posted 03-29-2012 12:07 PM ET (US)            

In fact, if you pay attention, I have often commented that my tow vehicle, which is rated for 3500 lbs., has some difficulty achieving freeway speeds with my Outrage behind it.

posted 03-29-2012 03:32 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

There is no federal speed limit for towing trailers. This will settle Peters rant, AAA listing by state speed limits for towing trailers. Its probably good to know this, I never paid attention.
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/trailer-speed-limits/

rich

---

I see that, Binks. Thanks. 99% of my interstate towing is in CA, and I see the 55mph signs everywhere. Since interstates are federal, I assumed the 55-while-towing law was nationwide. I see that that assumption was wrong.

Gila, I thought I was doing you a favor by posting a pic of the sign--since you said you hadn't seen one before. Sorry you took offense.

posted 03-30-2012 11:16 AM ET (US)            

I can't even imagine traveling at 55 MPH with boat in tow for the length of most of my trips farther afield. And if I attempted this archaic speed on my highways across the pond from Michigan, I'd be a definite danger to other drivers averaging 15 MPH faster or more. Perhaps the feeling of speed is completely relative to one's reflex time, i.e. brain-to-action delta?

My 4.7L V8 is much happier and in its zone up in the middle 70's.

posted 03-30-2012 12:13 PM ET (US)            

The force needed to tow a large boat on a trailer on level highway is mainly determined by the wind resistance. The wind resistance increases with the square of the wind speed. The result is much greater power is required to tow at 70-MPH than at 55-MPH. The effect is to burn a lot more gasoline.

posted 03-30-2012 12:21 PM ET (US)            

John also once launched his boat at Detour, ran about 100-miles down to Little Current, took on fuel, and ran 100-miles back, all in a few hours. I usually take a week to make that trip.

I don't think reaction time is a factor in selecting driving speed. I think experience, and a solid understanding of the handling properties of a truck with a large trailer attached when making emergency maneuvers are more influential.

posted 03-30-2012 02:09 PM ET (US)            

Tony

posted 03-30-2012 06:18 PM ET (US)            

The last time I dragged a Whaler to California I was delivering a 13 footer to Dave Risney In Soquel. Barreling down I-5 in my little Toyota truck at 65 in the Central Valley I suddenly hear an amplified voice over my left shoulder. It startled the hell out of me.

It was a CHiP in a cruiser car using his P.A. system to tell me the speed limit for trailer towing was 55 MPH.

I slowed down.

posted 03-30-2012 06:47 PM ET (US)            

BTW, the speed limit for everybody on Arizona rural freeways
is 75.