Posted on 06/28/2008 10:20:32 PM PDT by troy McClure
I didn’t see anything about whether the sailboat was under sail, or power at the time. Only that it was drifting, which suggests that they were not making way and just dead in the water out in the lake. If so, there’s no manuever he could have done to get out of the way in time.
In the article it said that several witnesses did report that the sailboat did in fact have its lights on. The mere fact that there are several witnesses that all saw the sailboat, when the operator of the power boat clearly did not, is pretty powerful testimony right there.
Everybody seems to concede that the powerboat was moving very fast. 40 on the water is very fast indeed, especially at night. Any operator must go slow enough to avoid a collision, right-of-way notwithstanding.
Even if the sailboat was dark, there’s any number of dark objects floating on the water from time to time. It is a skipper’s responsibility not to hit them. If there were no lights on, one could argue that there’s a small portion of contributory negligence on the part of the sailboat, but the proximate ~cause~ of the accident was that the motor boat was travelling too fast for conditions. Without that, there would have been no accident. With that, there may have still been an accident with or without any other contributing factor.
In any case, charging the person who happened to be in or near the helmsman’s seat of the drifting boat with any crime in this matter is ridiculous.
IMHO.
You're right, it is. Fair enough on your take.
Yes, a sailboat, under sail, has the right of way. If it was operating under its engine power than the rules are different. Also, it must have its navigation lights on and so should the power boat.
Thanks.
It’s been years since I’ve read through those rules. Perhaps this tragedy will serve a good cause.
ROFL ... now that's just funny! Good one.
(1) Deputy Perdock was operating his powerboat in what a reasonable man might deem an unsafe and reckless manner in conditions of limited visibility. IMHO, At the very least, he should have been cited for unsafe operation. Then again, there are no speed limits on large bodies of water, ouside of marked areas. I have no idea what the location on the lake was, or whether or not this lake posts maximum speeds. I suspect not. Lotsof ski boats for example, can top 60 mph! Of course, a prudent man reduces speed at night, but there's no law that says you have to.
(2) Dinius was legally intoxicated under present regulations. I doubt Perdock was given a breathalyzer or other BAL test, by his friends. (I predict the next DUI defense tactic will be to win the right for citizens to subject peace officers to the same sobriety tests they inflict. Bemighty interesting)
(3) A passenger on Dinius sailboat is dead. Captain is responsible. Blame, guilt, faulty, etc. is another matter. At sea, the captain is the captain, drunk is drunk, and dead is dead.
In a just world, Both Dinius and Perdock would be punished for the person's death. Some Solomon other than myself would decide who bears what part of the blame they both share, because share it they do. Me? I'd say it's about 90-10 the Sheriff department's fault. However, my views are not part of martitime law.
Drifting: If Dinius was indeed drifting, we have to know where. If he were drifting through a marked channel, and had no control over his vessel, he should have anchored before he entered the channel. If he had no control over his vessel outside of a marked channel, he is still responsible for the boat's movements. In general, having one's sails up doesn't mean you are free to become a hazard to navigation. Because he was intoxicated, legally speaking, the law says he was impaired, i.e., if not physically, in judgement. Sorry. Right now, the law is a ass about alcohol.
Witnesses say Dinius' running lights were on. Even if they were not on, more on Dinius, less on Perdock.
Very broadly speaking, and please do not slice my mooring pennant, but sailboat operators under sail alone are wrong to assume they have the right of way over powered vessels in all circumstances. They simply do not.
But if it makes my fellow sailors feel better, if Dinius goes to trial and he is found guilty of anything more than operating his vessel while intoxicated, and Perdock is not charged with anything, I will personally track down the SOB stinkpotter, drag him from the bar where he hangs out, and hang him from the spreaders of a Crocker cutter presently under restoration, and use 10 other reckless powerboaters and jetskiers as chum. That will make me feel better, too, even if it doesn't shange the way the law works.
Congress and SCOTUS could adopt that as their motto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.