Sinking of Rule 62 - Page 64 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related)
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree7Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #631  
Old 04-05-2013
美国华人, 帆船 教授及输送
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 2,446
Thanks: 22
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 8
rockDAWG is on a distinguished road
Re: Sinking of Rule 62

JW29, you have a point. I can't see how they can operate with some protection. If I eventually go insane and decide to purchase a boat, it will be under the company name or a new company.

The biggest problem in the US for this type frivolous lawsuit is when you win in court, you loss big time at your pocket. Been there done that, no fu*king fun.
__________________

Fine Print:
I am old school. Integrity is to do the right thing even when no one is watching.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #632  
Old 04-05-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,427
Thanks: 0
Thanked 116 Times in 103 Posts
Rep Power: 4
JonEisberg will become famous soon enough
Re: Sinking of Rule 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockDAWG View Post
I am so surprised that most if not all professional delivery captains do not have professional liability insurance to cover their asses. Even the plumbers and carpenters carry professional liability.
Seems quite a stretch to make such an assumption, based solely upon one or two responses on a sailing forum...

James has it right, and I suspect I've been somewhat indiscreet in being as forthcoming as I was about my own attitude on this... However, the yacht delivery business may not be a particularly good career choice for worrywarts, and I have taken FAR greater risks over the years, than running boats for some of them absent liability protection (grin). And, having earned the bulk of my 'fortune' over 30 years by standing or kneeling within a few meters of F1 and Indy cars traveling at speeds in excess of 200 mph, I've always figured my time spent delivering yachts to be pretty sedate and relaxing, and posing relatively little 'risk', in comparison...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockDAWG View Post
The biggest problem in the US for this type frivolous lawsuit...
While it's certainly disappointing to hear of this latest development, it's hardly surprising, and I doubt this one rightfully fits into the category of being "frivolous"... Despite the fact that Mr Ross was an 'amateur', his decision that night was every bit as indefensible as that made by Walbridge on the BOUNTY...

There was talk here in the aftermath of RULE 62, that the facts would come out in the "investigation" that would be conducted by the Bahamians... Has anyone seen, or heard of such a report? Hmmm, I didn't think so...

Unfortunately, these are the rules we have long been playing by in America, and the family/estate of Laura Zekoll cannot be entirely faulted for taking advantage of them... And sadly, aventyr60 has it right, in declining to enlist Americans as crew on his boat...

Last edited by JonEisberg; 04-05-2013 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #633  
Old 04-05-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Narragansett Bay
Posts: 8,841
Thanks: 10
Thanked 131 Times in 117 Posts
Rep Power: 6
Minnewaska will become famous soon enough Minnewaska will become famous soon enough
Re: Sinking of Rule 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameswilson29 View Post
I.....I would also guess many of them operate their business through an LLC or other entity to reduce their personal liability
Dig back to torts class and tell me how forming an LLC would make any difference, if you are hired as a delivery skipper and personally cause a loss. An LLC can only limit liability, when it is the defendant. If you are at the helm, you are the defendant, not the LLC. If you have personal assets, which is the variable, you should have them insured, unless you can afford to lose them.

Quote:
I blame the outrageous verdicts on the jurors, not the lawyers..
Of course you do counselor.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jeanneau 54DS

In the harsh marine environment, something is always in need of repair. Margaritas fix everything.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #634  
Old 04-05-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 2,022
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 9
PalmettoSailor will become famous soon enough
Re: Sinking of Rule 62

I could accept it a little better if they brought a normal wrongful death suit, but this bogus strategy of stretching a law in place to protect paid professonal crew to cover this case, both rubs me wrong and creates the potential to damage the entire sport of sailing.

We all know the difference between paid crew and offering to partially offset someones expenses, but should this case set a precedent it will have wide reaching detrimental effect.
__________________
PalmettoSailor
s/v Palmetto Moon
1991 Catalina 36
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #635  
Old 04-06-2013
jameswilson29's Avatar
Senior Smart Aleck
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 2,038
Thanks: 26
Thanked 64 Times in 59 Posts
Rep Power: 6
jameswilson29 is on a distinguished road
Re: Sinking of Rule 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
Dig back to torts class and tell me how forming an LLC would make any difference, if you are hired as a delivery skipper and personally cause a loss. An LLC can only limit liability, when it is the defendant. If you are at the helm, you are the defendant, not the LLC. If you have personal assets, which is the variable, you should have them insured, unless you can afford to lose them.
Thank you for recognizing I am not a personal injury lawyer or a business formation lawyer, so I am not expert in this area, but I do deal with creditor-debtor law and debt allocation in divorce. (I don't know what your background is, although sometimes you seem to be quite knowledgeable about law. I would guess you have a law degree, but never practiced outside of serving as in-house counsel.)

I did not write "eliminate" liability, I wrote "reduce" it.

You conduct business through the LLC, so the LLC is the defendant. The classic formation is a holding company and an operating company. The holding company holds any assets, the operating company runs the business. The boat owner signs a written contract with the LLC. The captain is simply an employee of the operating company, as are any crew. Of course, someone may still sue the captain for negligence or intentional torts.

If the captain is wealthy, he has already conveyed his personal assets into an irrevocable trust with spendthrift provisions for estate planning purposes, so no creditors can go after them. Further, the captain has wisely executed a prenuptial agreement and any necessary, subsequent marital agreements with the admiral so he has already allocated the risks of any domestic liabilities, not in an attempt to impoverish or disinherit his spouse, but just to be fair and eliminate a costly divorce. The captain does not really own anything personally, so although he is not "judgment proof", he is "execution proof".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
Of course you do counselor.

Last edited by jameswilson29; 04-06-2013 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #636  
Old 04-07-2013
billyruffn's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,277
Thanks: 5
Thanked 25 Times in 17 Posts
Rep Power: 10
billyruffn will become famous soon enough
Re: Sinking of Rule 62

Although Wikipedia is not always the best source, here's what they have on the relevant section of the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act):

Quote:
Seaman's rights

The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in early June 1920, formerly 46 U.S.C. § 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 U.S.C. § 30104. The Act formalized the rights of seamen.

It allows injured sailors to make claims and collect from their employers for the negligence of the ship owner, the captain, or fellow members of the crew.[4] It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at 46 U.S.C. § 688(a), which provides:


"Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply..."

This allows seamen to bring actions against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence. These are rights not afforded by common international maritime law.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), has set a benchmark for determining the status of any employee as a "Jones Act" seaman. Any worker who spends less than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters is presumed not to be a seaman under the Jones Act. An action under the Act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court. The seaman/plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, a right which is not afforded in maritime law absent a statute authorizing it.
I'm wondering if the legal pro's who frequent these pages would say about the following two hypothesises:

1/ The reason the plaintiffs are seeking to try this under the Jones Act is that it took place in the territorial waters of a foreign sovereign state and therefore US courts may not have jurisdication, other than under the terms of international maritime law, which as we see above doesn't afford the same rights as US law would.

2/ The plaintiffs will have a tough time overcoming the USSC ruling that:

Quote:
Any worker who spends less than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters is presumed not to be a seaman under the Jones Act.
Thoughts anyone?

PS And then I found this on Wiki:

Last edited by billyruffn; 04-07-2013 at 01:53 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rule of thumb for Jib sheet jbrockpiano Gear & Maintenance 5 05-27-2008 08:47 AM
Rule Bilge switches DWrate Gear & Maintenance 6 08-15-2007 12:42 AM
Rule Question please d212 Racing 5 02-03-2007 09:59 AM
The Rule of 60 John Rousmaniere Her Sailnet Articles 0 08-08-2004 08:00 PM
New Handicap Rule paulk Racing 2 01-17-2003 02:07 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.