Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

[Beefer]

Last night I was out in the ICW moving the boat to our new house (15 miles south). Got a later start then I had hoped for, but didn't mind the nighttime cruise. About 5 miles into my journey, at about 7pm, I was stopped by the Coast Guard (they couldn't see my all-around light because of the cockpit cover). I was actually happy to have them board me for a safety check, as I hadn't been boarded yet on this boat, and I appreciate the 'free' check just to be sure I'm 100%.

They were a super nice group of 4 (in my eyes) kids, very polite and professional. I think it helped that I had everything at the ready.

So they were in one of the inflatables with the aluminum pilothouses, and we were tied up together (rear cleat and looped around a side stanchion of the bowrail) in the channel, lights full on, including the flashing blues. We were motoring (at idle they had me 'in tow') down the channel towards a bridge. I look up, and coming through the bridge is a 40-ish foot sportfisherman, running about 8knots, throwing a (relatively) huge wake, coming along on our starboard side. This is a no wake zone, and when that wake hit, it was like we were in the middle of the Atlantic during a Nor'easter! Our boats were slamming into one another, and the wake caused the CG boat to get thrown away from my boat. This caused the rope that was tied off to my bowrail to pull the bowrail, and it broke the stanchion, and totally bent the entire port side of my bowrail!!!

I said to the Coasties 'You're going to get him, right? He's responsible for his wake, and his wake caused damage to my boat!' They quickly finished the paperwork for me, and then they went after the SF. Boarded him, did a safety, and got his name, phone, and insurance info for me. Don't know if they cited him or not.

When they came back to me to give me his info, (they guy said he sped up to avoid us ???) they told me that he was nice about it, and there shouldn't be a problem, but... and here's the kicker.... if I had any trouble collecting from him or his insurance, I'll be getting a damage report in the mail from the USCG about the incident, and because we were tied up, the USCG will pay for the damage if he (or his insurance) doesn't.

I don't think the USCG should have to pay for this if he doesn't. Yes, I want my boat fixed, and yes, if he doesn't pay I will submit to the USCG, but only because I can, not because I think they were at fault. As easy as that will make it, why should the USCG be held responsible?

 

[ziggy]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

why should the USCG be held responsible?

imho, because they were tied up to your boat. their the ones who initiated the tie up. not you. the cruiser going by was bad timing, but the cruiser wasn't tied up to you, the costies were...

 

[DianneB]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

I suspect the Coast Guard may not eat the cost but rather tack it on to the offender's bill.

 

[45Auto]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

I suspect the Coast Guard may not eat the cost but rather tack it on to the offender's bill.

Exactly what do you think the Coast Guard will be billing him for? Do you really think the Coast Guard sends out bills for wake damage??? All they can do is give him a ticket for going too fast in a no wake zone. Any claims for damage would have to be decided in court if the other boat denies responsibility. I would expect him or his insurance to cover the damage with no problem since the court would hopefully consider the Coast Guard report. However, you'll find that as a general rule that it's VERY hard to collect for wake damage, it's just your word against theirs if they deny it.

Maybe the Canadian Coast Guard works differently than the US Coast Guard.

 

[etracer68]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

The way I see it,is, you were in tow, or tied to there boat. They had control of your boat, so its the USCG's responibility. If the USCG feels the other boat was at fault, then they can go after him for the doe.

 

[Beefer]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

imho, because they were tied up to your boat. their the ones who initiated the tie up. not you. the cruiser going by was bad timing, but the cruiser wasn't tied up to you, the costies were...

The way I see it,is, you were in tow, or tied to there boat. They had control of your boat, so its the USCG's responibility. If the USCG feels the other boat was at fault, then they can go after him for the doe.

So based on these responses, (and Ziggy, I have the utmost respect for you), if you and a buddy were tied up together (rafting), and I came by throwing a wake in a no wake zone, and your boat was damaged by your buddy's boat, you're both saying your buddy is responsible for the damage?!?! Or if your boat is docked, and a wake causes damage to your boat, are you or the dock owner responsible for the damage?

Rules of the road: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR WAKE

IMO, the Coast Guard was doing their job by the book. The captain of the SF was NOT operating in a safe manner, it was dark, and he/we were in a no wake zone. The captain of that vessel, and only him, should be responsible for the damage. If the USCG had hit my boat when attempting to tie up, or damage was caused by negligence by the USCG, then yes, they should be responsible.

I just think this is a ridiculous loophole that can cause the USCG (read; taxpayers) to fork over money that they shouldn't have to, and can allow people to not be held responsible for their actions.

 

[scipper77]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

If need be you could get a deposition from the coast gaurd. This is one case where it's hardly your word against his.

I rarely disagree with 45 as he is usually right but this is not your word against his in this case. There was a third party involved. Actually rereading the earlier post 45 threw a "generally" in there.

45 is right that claiming wake damage is not easy. Some wake is always present, proving there was too much wake is the sort of thing a lawyer could have a field day with.

I'm sorry to hear about the whole situation. Anything involving someone else's insurance paying you can be a mess. Especially when it was there negligence.

 

[Beefer]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

FYI - Here's Florida's Law regarding wakes and responsibility:

F.S.A. Sec. 327.33(2):

(2) Any person operating a vessel upon the waters of this state shall operate the vessel in a reasonable and prudent manner, having regard for other waterborne traffic, posted speed and wake restrictions, and all other attendant circumstances so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. The failure to operate a vessel in a manner described in this subsection constitutes careless operation. However, vessel wake and shoreline wash resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel shall, absent negligence, not constitute damage or endangerment to property. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a noncriminal violation as defined in s. 775.08.

 

[H20Rat]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

Your boat was under coast guard control and you were not free to leave. They are responsible for any damages, period.

Imagine you parked your car illegally, and the police were towing you. During the tow, someone pulled out in front of the towtruck, and your car was totaled in the accident. First party responsible is the other driver, but if they can't/won't pay obviously, police are #2 in line for your vehicle.

 

[Cannondale]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

So based on these responses, (and Ziggy, I have the utmost respect for you), if you and a buddy were tied up together (rafting), and I came by throwing a wake in a no wake zone, and your boat was damaged by your buddy's boat, you're both saying your buddy is responsible for the damage?!?! Or if your boat is docked, and a wake causes damage to your boat, are you or the dock owner responsible for the damage?

Rules of the road: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR WAKE

IMO, the Coast Guard was doing their job by the book. The captain of the SF was NOT operating in a safe manner, it was dark, and he/we were in a no wake zone. The captain of that vessel, and only him, should be responsible for the damage. If the USCG had hit my boat when attempting to tie up, or damage was caused by negligence by the USCG, then yes, they should be responsible.

I just think this is a ridiculous loophole that can cause the USCG (read; taxpayers) to fork over money that they shouldn't have to, and can allow people to not be held responsible for their actions.

Sorry, but your examples are not the same as being under tow by the USCG. Once they tie you up to their boat and tow you, they're in control of your boat and are assuming responsibility for its safety. You've relinquished being master of your craft and the towing boat has taken responsibility for your boat.

A better analogy would have been if you'd have been being towed by a sea towing company. What if the tow company had put your towed vessel at peril and it'd been damaged while in their care? Would the company have no responsibility in that case?

But, as the OP pointed out quite well, the USCG boat did provide the other boater's insurance info, and will be providing at least an incident report, so it does sound like the offending boat has been cited for being responsible for the wake damage to the OP's boat. The USCG's responsibility in all this is that the USCG has control of the OP's boat and had direct control over and responsibility for his boat.

The "what if your boat hits the dock" or "two buddies tie up" arguments are irrelevant.

 

[TilliamWe]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

It's not that they are held responsible, but rather that they were in "care, custody, and control" of your vessel at the time. They became the "primary insurer" of your boat at that point. It's not a "right or wrong" thing, it's an "insurance law" thing.

 

[Frank Acampora]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

You guys are missing the fact that the front was not tied to a cleat, but looped around the bow rail. SO: the CG personnel were a bit at fault for not securing their boat correctly. Your government has procedures and rules of practice for everything, including, I would guess, how to tie-up. I would bet that securing their craft while boarding has a specific written procedure.

If the wake had not happened, no damage would have been done, so the primary cause of the damage was the other boat. HOWEVER, the secondary cause was CG improperly securing their boat. If the front had been secured to a cleat, your bow rail would not have been damaged. Thus: If you can not collect damages from the primary cause agent, you can collect damage from the secondary.

 

[Mike Robinson]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

You guys are missing the fact that the front was not tied to a cleat, but looped around the bow rail. SO: the CG personnel were a bit at fault for not securing their boat correctly. Your government has procedures and rules of practice for everything, including, I would guess, how to tie-up. I would bet that securing their craft while boarding has a specific written procedure.

If the wake had not happened, no damage would have been done, so the primary cause of the damage was the other boat. HOWEVER, the secondary cause was CG improperly securing their boat. If the front had been secured to a cleat, your bow rail would not have been damaged. Thus: If you can not collect damages from the primary cause agent, you can collect damage from the secondary.

Exactly! Well said Frank

 

[Beefer]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

It's not that they are held responsible, but rather that they were in "care, custody, and control" of your vessel at the time. They became the "primary insurer" of your boat at that point. It's not a "right or wrong" thing, it's an "insurance law" thing.

That's the most reasonable and realistic explanation.

You guys are missing the fact that the front was not tied to a cleat, but looped around the bow rail. SO: the CG personnel were a bit at fault for not securing their boat correctly. Your government has procedures and rules of practice for everything, including, I would guess, how to tie-up. I would bet that securing their craft while boarding has a specific written procedure.

If the wake had not happened, no damage would have been done, so the primary cause of the damage was the other boat. HOWEVER, the secondary cause was CG improperly securing their boat. If the front had been secured to a cleat, your bow rail would not have been damaged. Thus: If you can not collect damages from the primary cause agent, you can collect damage from the secondary.

I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to point this out. That is the only aspect of this that I feel puts the CG at a percentage of fault.


Don't get me wrong, if I have any problems collecting from the offending vessel, I will be making the claim to the USCG. My whole point of this is that the SF was (IMO) operating his vessel in a negligent manner, and put property (and safety) in danger. If I had a smaller boat, it wouldn't be a far stretch to say someone could have been thrown off the boat. My old 16' Bayliner had a very low freeboard, and being thrown would have definitely been a possibility.

I just thought it was interesting that while the law states that you are responsible for your wake, there are some loopholes...

 

[TilliamWe]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

That's the most reasonable and realistic explanation.
...

Because it's the correct one.

As Frank later points out, they had not taken every measure required to properly secure your vessel, either. So, the wake maker's insurance company will try to apply a percentage of negligence to the Coast Guard anyway. And their argument will be, "there wouldn't have been any damage had the Coast Guard properly secured the vessel, that they were in the care, custody, and control of." And they'll be right. At that point, the Coastie's "insurance" will be the next responsible party. Your carrier will be the last or excess coverage only.

 

[Frank Acampora]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

OK, Admiral Tilliam. So you are saying that because the Coast Guard did not perform due diligance in securing the boat and did not anticipate an event that should have been anticipated (Murphy's Law) they are actually the primary cause of the damage?

I work for the US Govt. in a different agency, but we have a procedure for every regulation and each is detailed to all possible contingencies. For example: Lockout/tagout prior to inspecting equipment. It is assumed by default that the equipment IS energised and can injure the inspector. Detailed step by step instructions are provided to lock out the equipment and then prove it is not energised prior to inspection. Before performing inspections requiring lockout, the personnel are trained in the procedure.

Actually it seems to be popular to "Diss" the government, but as the largest employer in the United States, The US Govt. is really rather progressive in thought and action. OOOH--There's one that will get everyone going! Bet this thread gets to be 20 pages long now!

Anyway, back to procedure: That's why I said that the Coast Guard personnel probably had a correct procedure for securing vessels during boarding, which they probably violated.

Mind you, I'm not arguing, not up on law, just trying to learn what would possibly be the actual ruling and outcome.

OOPS--Never mind. I misread your last sentence. Wake makers insurance would be primary, Us Govt secondary and boat owners insurance tertiary--Correct?

 

[Beefer]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

Ok, this is going to get interesting. Spoke to the offending vessel owner, and because of his statements to me, I have also talked to the USCG and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Marine Division. Looks like this may turn into a bigger deal then originally thought.

For now, I won't go into details as to what was discussed in the numerous phone calls, but as soon as I can, I'll fill you guys in. I'm amazed at the turn this has taken.

 

[scipper77]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

Ok, this is going to get interesting. Spoke to the offending vessel owner, and because of his statements to me, I have also talked to the USCG and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Marine Division. Looks like this may turn into a bigger deal then originally thought.

For now, I won't go into details as to what was discussed in the numerous phone calls, but as soon as I can, I'll fill you guys in. I'm amazed at the turn this has taken.

I'm not sure you need to be talking to him if it's an insurance claim. I feel pretty bad based on what you just said. These things can get ugly.

Do you have any representation in this matter like your own insurance carrier?? If not it's you against his insurance companies lawyer. That is if he is even insured.

Maybe if it's possible you should just try and deal with the coast guard no matter who is at fault.

 

[TilliamWe]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

Scipper, why would there be any lawyers involving an insurance claim? No need for that. How about a qualified, licensed (in FL a license is required) insurance ADJUSTER actually conducting an investigation, first? That is what WILL happen, it happens every day. And I can almost guarantee you that the guy's insurance company will assume some liability, but they will say the CG was complicit. (Because they were)
As usual the "sue first" and the "insurance companies cheat everyone" crowd has piped up. Well, you'll all see what the truth is.

Frank, no I am NOT saying the CG was the primary cause. Just what I said, they are a secondary cause. But since they had "care, custody, and control" of Beefer's vessel, they became his primary insurance. Primary Insurance is afforded regardless of fault. But you also made my (or in this case, the wake making boat's) case for me, by once again pointing out that they failed to follow their procedure for securing a vessel. That makes them partially responsible for the damages.

 

[DANZIG]

Re: Responsible for your wake? maybe not...

I am certainly not a lawyer and this post will probably show that but,,,,

I am thinking.. Wake in a no-wake zone, case closed. Unless,, they did not write him up for it.

It will be interesting to hear how this shakes out.