Mark,
You are right about my agreement being too broad. I have "engineers myopia", focusing on specific facts too closely.
The subject of "bad" to "tragic" reminds me of the lawsuit aaginst NACRA.
Some people(3?) went offshore(Miami area?) without enought life preservers in a NACRA 5.2 that they knew was leaking.
When it flip over they couldn't get it back up.
One of the people decided to swim for shore even though they knew sharks were in the area.
The person was killed by a shark.
The family sued NACRA because a "catamaran is inherently unstable and dangerous", therefore NACRA was making a defective product.
Fortunately NACRA fought back, unlike Hobie(comptip), and won.

No matter what the sailor understands and believes, it is usually the family and an ambulance chasing scumbag, like John Edwards, who sues.

Never forget the "deep pockets" philosophy which permeates our country today.

Sam, That NACRA story is an example of what I was thinking when I started this thread. That's a lawsuit that almost never gets filed unless there's a deep pocket (insurance) to go after. No sane lawyer is going to do that one on contigency. Someone would have to pay by the hour, and not many would pay that kind of dough up front on such a shaky case.

I've changed my mind about having regatta ins., however.
The US sailing policy is a good one to have. What moved me to start this was a policy that was used at a Laser Reg. last year (Allstate) that was so full of holes that I had a hard time dreaming up a senario where they would acually have to pay anything. Having a policy like that does nothing but incourage the type of lawsuit you mentioned.
I've come to see there are a few situations that could result in the RC being liable, like a chase boat hitting someone and the boat owner not having his own ins.

An aside note: Changing the designation of the "Crash" boat to "Mark" boat would, in court, do nothing for the defence. It would go like this:

"So you had NO safety boats Mr. RC?"
" That is correct"
I would then re-phrase the question four or five times to make sure it stuck with the jury. Either you have to repeat that you didn't make an effort to get safety boats over and over, or you attempt to change the story. (DROOL)
Then I would provide evidence of past regattas that had "safety" boats. SLAM DUNK.

Anyway, Mark was essentially right and I was wrong. We should have regatta insurance, but not just any old policy.
Remember, the large print giveth and the fine print taketh away.

Later, Mark L.

Hi Mark

First let me say that I I certainly want lots of marks boats around!
They are a greatly appreciated service provided by the sponsoring club.

The questions are why do you want them around (Saftey or towing marks and boats around)
What you think they will be able to do. (Save your life or watch helplessly)

Most importantly as Sam noted... What message are the next of kin, judge and jury going to think you mean.

You wrote.
I'm only addressing how best to save a boat in a tight spot.

Obviously You and PU's expectation is that they are around for saftey and a rate of one crash boat for every 10 cats matches your comfort level. Just in case....

I think this is well intentioned but paradoxically irresponsible.

You have shifted responsiblity from the skipper to some one else with this standard of the more (pick a rate) patrol boats the safer.
AND you pretend that this other "saftey person" will actually have the skill, training and opportunity to do somthing about the emergency.

My position is that everyone (cats + powerboats) is around for saftey...That its the captains job to ensure saftey and his alone

Clubs who manage a regatta with one powerboat are not more or less responsible then a club that manages the same size regatta with 10 powerboats. They are identical! You just get a lot more service at the club with 10 power boats on the water. (I remember a Statue of LIberty race where the RC tossed cold drinks to us while we drifted...Greatly appreciated
at the time)

The reason they are equally responsible and must be identical is that saftey is the individual skippers responsiblity.

As soon as you say... OH... the club with 10 powerboats is running a 10 X safer event or even just a safer event... I think you have cooked your own goose. You have shifted the saftey onus to the club and away from the captain.

Besides.... How do you prove that the club with more powerboats is safer? How do you measure this kind of thing?

you wrote:
So you had NO safety boats Mr. RC?"
" That is correct"
I would then re-phrase the question four or five times to make sure it stuck with the jury. Either you have to repeat that you didn't make an effort to get safety boats over and over, or you attempt to change the story. (DROOL)
Then I would provide evidence of past regattas that had "safety" boats. SLAM DUNK.

And Paul Ulibari's directive would make your plight even worse as RC. The national authority TOLD YOU to have X number of boats and because you don't my clien'ts Wife is dead!

Fortunately, the law is on the side of the RC... The law clearly states that the skipper is responsible for saftey and NO ONE ELSE. However... once you imply or promise something else... you have a contract and you are screwed.

So long as you are clear in all of your actions and documents that Saftey is SOLELY the responsiblity of the Skipper you are doing the responsible thing and in my opinion the right thing.

you wrote:
Hence the opinion that to not seek as many assist boats as possible simply to make it look better in court is cowardly.

Hopefully we agree that I am not arguing this point.

To not seek them feeling that they will not be needed is misguided.

I am arguing with you about this notion.
They are not needed for saftey!...

Skippers who fudge on saftey items like a whistle on your life jacket and don't take full and total responsiblity for their boat's upkeep and the crew's saftey are the misguided ones.

Take care
Mark S



















.

Hi Mark, First, it is safety, not saftey!! You are killing me with that mis-spelling! The lawyer will say "You can't even SPELL safety, let alone provide it on the race course!! :-) Next, the RRS are quite clear about who's responsibility safety is. Just read the PART 1 -Fundamental rules on page 3 of the RRS book. The first four rules all deal with safety and the acceptance of the rules and the corresponding responsibilty of deciding to race or to continue to race. It is in the front of the book and under the heading of Fundamental rules on purpose!

Mike

Mike, as usual, the RRS are not "quite clear" to me. I have the Part 1 - Fundamental Rules, right in front of me. Are you saying that they place the responsibility upon the sailor and absolve the race committee of all responsibility for the safety of the sailors?

Mark,
I disagree that having safety boats shifts any responsability from the guy who goes out sailing in a high preformance boat. I believe the onus still rests with the skipper. We may have to agree to disagree on this point as while it's clear as a bell as far as marine law is concerned, in tort land anything goes. The best defence is to do everything you can to increase the odds of safety.

And that is what having a lot of safety boats around does.
Increase the odds that someone will be available to help. To say that since there may be incompetent people in some of those boats, and therefore can't promise X level of expertice in rescue, then we shouldn't have them around is a kind of an "all or nothing" game.

So what's P.U. to do? Not recommend them just because it might be a minor (and I believe minor) irritation to the insurance company's lawyers? No way. You don't want to be trapped into the mindset that every little thing that a lawyer could say in court is going to win the case. Want to look bad? Have no extra safety boats around and have someone testify that they weren't there because they might make the racers feel too safe.

The addition of extra safety boats does not in and of itself create any implyed contract absolving the skippers of thier obligations to thier own and crews safety.

It is entirly possible to be the worlds best sailor, with the best equipment, and still be in need of assistance on
on occasion.

Best wishes,
Mark L.

Gosh, I don't know how I survived my early years of racing through the 1940's and 1950's. At our yacht club on Lake Erie, we had fixed marks out on the lake, and we had a fixed starting line straight out from one side of our channel. The race committee started and finished the races from shore, and we did not have such a thing as a mark boat or chase boat or rescue boat or any kind of powerboat on the water. We had multiple classes -- Thistles, Lightnings, Highlanders, International 21's, and Snipes -- probably 50 boats every weekend. If a boat got swamped and started to sink, somebody would eventually come out and tow him in.

High Mark L

Yes, I think we are going to agree to disagree here.

I disagree that having safety boats shifts any responsability from the guy who goes out sailing in a high preformance boat.
MS I see it the other way.

I believe the onus still rests with the skipper. We may have to agree to disagree on this point as while it's clear as a bell as far as marine law is concerned, in tort land anything goes. The best defence is to do everything you can to increase the odds of safety.

MS I see this one the other way as well.
I don’t think you can meet this standard because when do the odds shift in your favor? 1 saftey for every 10… to as many as 1 saftey for every cat? When is it safe enough and how do you judge that its safe enough…


And that is what having a lot of safety boats around does.
Increase the odds that someone will be available to help. To say that since there may be incompetent people in some of those boats, and therefore can't promise X level of expertice in rescue, then we shouldn't have them around is a kind of an "all or nothing" game.

MS Point of fact.. I am not making this all or nothing argument.
I am saying that inexperienced or incompetent but well meaning people on power boats does not increase safety on the water. I think the onus is on you to prove that more safety boats increases safety. After all… the racing rules and maritime rules leave this issue strictly up to the skipper.


So what's P.U. to do? Not recommend them just because it might be a minor (and I believe minor) irritation to the insurance company's lawyers? No way. You don't want to be trapped into the mindset that every little thing that a lawyer could say in court is going to win the case. Want to look bad? Have no extra safety boats around and have someone testify that they weren't there because they might make the racers feel too safe.

MS Again I think we agree to disagree.
I think PU should retract all of his comments with respect to safety because they are not needed. As a PRO he should deal with issues about managing the race course. As a sailor, I will deal with issues about my safety and the safety of any sailor in distress that I happen on according to the maritime and racing rules.
As a club officer… I certainly do not want to be tagged as running an unsafe regatta because I don’t have 1 safety boat per 10 cats. Better to say nothing about this issue in my opinion.

The addition of extra safety boats does not in and of itself create any implyed contract absolving the skippers of thier obligations to thier own and crews safety.
It is entirly possible to be the worlds best sailor, with the best equipment, and still be in need of assistance on
on occasion.

MS Wow! we agree!

Thanks for the very respectful debate. I understand and sympathize with your position (actually started out on your side of the fence) however in the end I land on the other side (sorting through the issues as a club officer gives you a very different point of view)

Take Care
Mark Schneider


ps. Sorry Mike F... this little typing box allows you to type things that you might not want to see the light of day. saftey.. sssh.

I'll probably get slammed for this but... The horse is dead and its still getting beat anyway. Everyone agrees that having support boats on the water is a good thing and we all have as many as we can scrounge up. The issue is what those support boats are called. If you call them safety boats or anything of the sort, you will get hammered if something happens thats almost a guarantee. Either way they will perform the same task, set marks, and help out if someone gets in trouble "if" they can. BTW a lawyer told me it dosen't matter what someone signs, if there is a problem you can still get sued. It just makes it more on your side to have the bases covered.

IMO just use common sense and good judgement.

Clayton

I think this whole debate, while interesting, is begging the underlying question of whether the race committee or the organizing body has any intrinsic responsibility for the safety of the sailors participating in the regatta.

As Mike Fahle pointed out, the Racing Rules of Sailing seem to make it clear that safety is the responsibility of the individual sailors to take care of themselves and to also take care of their fellow competitors.

If it were just left at that and if it were made clear to sailors at all regattas that they are on their own, there should not be a question of responsibility.

However, as some of the posters have tried to point out, as soon as the race committee/organizers appear to assume some implied or explicit responsibility for safety, they may be exposing themselves to potential lawsuits.

Nobody is saying regatta organizers should not have as many powerboats on the water as possible. It is just that it is better if nothing is said about it and if no specific policies are set and if sailors do not have the idea that they can expect the race committee to come to their rescue.

As far as regatta insurance to cover the race committee volunteers -- is it necessary? Well, it probably would not be necessary if you did not have any volunteers and one person ran the whole show.

But having a lot of powerboats out there on the water is a double-edged sword -- there are more people potentially available to help out if a sudden squall rolls through, but there are also more chances of a powerboat causing damage or inadvertently hurting somebody. Which is the primary reason the race committee volunteers need to be protected by regatta insurance.

Winston Churchill was believed to have said, "Kill the Lawyers". Possibly a rhetorical statement, but quite applicable to this thread. The only injury I heard of was a serious one- a broken thigh at a 2 boat mark contact at a Nationals event. Did a lawsuit result? And I was involved in lifting a I-20 off Dave Lennard's in a Worrell 1000 incident at Jensen Beach...am I liable for.....what? I'm supposed to sign a form first? Churchill was right!

Like all good attorneys, I hereby incorporate by reference all valid statements and theories of law previously posted in this insurance thread and disassociate myself from all others.
As commodore of one of the local Hobie Fleets and one that runs the annual Treesmacker Regatta, we, of course, are more than happy to pay a nominal fee to have the Division's insurance company provide an endorsement covering our Fleet. In the words of Dana Carvey "It's just prudent to do so.." As an individual and attorney, arguments against carrying insurance don't sit well with me; as why would you even want to go at it alone if an action was brought against you? Typical litigation costs can exceed $50K per MONTH, why not transfer that risk to the insurance company, who will have a duty to defend, for a small premium amount. Again, in California, two fundamental duties insurance companies have (and these are INDEPENDENT duties): 1) they’ll defend –f even the potential exists of liability (court looks at on your behalf liberally)and, 2) indemnification - they’ll pay liabilities up until your coverage limits. So I go back to why would you want to go it alone given the litigious environment we live in today? Sure, "deep pockets" may keep a plaintiff in the game, but you are on the side, protected.

At last glance, a regatta's race committee is free to have participants sign an express assumption of risk waiver. I believe, though this would need to be verified in each regatta's state, that sailing is still considered an inherently dangerous activity. As such, participants impliedly assume associated risks. At the end of the day, the waivers and assumption arguments are defenses to legal complaints. It is important to realize that the laws are likely to be different in each of the above posted I recognize that the laws are different in each state and our experiences will differ. Just my two cents.
Troy Szabo