What I really wanted to comment on, however, was the quote above because *your opinion* of a legal distinction is not in dispute. You think that the allegedly negligent decision by the skipper of RULE 62 and the alleged intentional conduct by the owner of the RD's Transpac boat are the same and that it is "the height of hypocrisy" to distinguish between them (which BTW is what RD did -- you inaccurately accuse him of raising the prospect of legal action -- someone else brought that up RD responded). Jon - you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. And, you have some fine things to say about boats now and again here on SN. But your opinion about the law -- and more importantly about the facts underlying the legal distinction between intentional conduct and mistakes -- is ignorant. You would do well to think about the distinction between the conduct at issue; the actor's choices; their abilities to do differently or correct their conduct; as well as the impact which holding them responsible for their conduct might have on others. If you still don't get it, maybe it would help you to inform your self about the legal distinctions since courts have spent hundred if not thousands of years expounding on these questions. As Poop said . . . they might even school you.
That's certainly a fair point, I would be the first to concede my understanding of the legal complexities of these respective examples might only rise to the level of any layman, at best... I was simply pointing out the 'coarsest'
distinction between the two - namely that one involved a fatality
to a crewmember, while the other involved little more than unpleasantness
to a sailor who has survived to sail again...
You're right, in the letters of the law, it is perhaps best left to the experts to explain those subtle distinctions... For example, such as why the decision by the skipper of RULE 62 to enter that Bahamian cut that night could merely be adjudged a mistake
instead of intentional conduct
, whereas the failure, say, to top off the water tanks on AQUARIUS prior to departure would likely have been intentional conduct
, and not simply a mistake