Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Islander
I'm not suggesting the powerboat was going to fast. I don't know if the powerboater was at fault at all. What I disagree with is the idea that because the kayaker was at fault the powerboater is AUTOMATICALLY innocent. I also disagree with the idea that if you hit something without a light it is no problem.
Perhaps I should have said "if you can't see well enough, you don't go" it is not possible to see everything at night. This is in contrast to the "I don't see any lights, so I can go" theory I disagree with.
|
I think that this whole thread has come down to degrees of "innocence" which is a word I don't like to use. There were no formal charges placed on the power boater that we have heard about, so guilt and innocence is irrelevant. I believe that we are talking more degrees of responsibility in the insurance sense. Which is somewhat relevant because in one of the posts it was mentioned that the naked people were renters and the owner of the property wanted the powerboater to replace the kayak they hit. Now in an insurance sense the kayaker is much more at fault than the powerboater. I look at it as a car accident. You are expected to keep a safe distance between all cars, and with that you have to make some assumptions about other peoples actions. So as you come to an intersection and have a green light, you don't expect the person stopped at the red to pull out 10 feet in front of your car. If they do pull out and you hit them the responsibilty for the accident is much more theirs than yours. The same logic can be used in this situation. Islander your statement that if there are no lights in front of you then you are clear is logical, otherwise you are frozen with indescision as to whether there is an unlighted object that no matter how hard you look can be unnoticed (a log a few inches under the water). So you have to take some things on faith that if there is a manned craft in front of you that they have some means to make themselves visible. A boater
should operate their boat at a reasonable speed, and in this situation we really can't say that the boater was irresonsible given the information we have. What we can say is that the kayaker is much more at fault than the boater. Had the kayaker stayed in the kayak and used some means to let the boater know that they were there, most likely this would not have occured. There is always a risk of hitting an unlighted object at night. I lived on an island for many summers, and actually had to be out on a boat most nights. And the thought would never occur to me to be out on the water day or night without making myself as visible as possible to passing boats. I also wouldn't pull out of an intersection into the path of an oncoming car. You have to take somethings on faith that a thinking person would not knowing put themselves and you in harms way when it could be avoided. The kayaker put themselves and other boaters in harms way by being out at night without lights.