Are You Responsible for Your Wake?

[TxSurfer]

I care too much for my boat not to secure It properly, but I own a Malibu and maybe others don't feel the same way I do. If they did they would take responsiblity for there stupidity.

[VinRLX]

they would take responsiblity for there stupidity.

Do you mean 'their' stupidity?

[Hwood]

It was the boat that was about 50' off the end of the dock.

If that's true the driver is a total dips*** considering the rider is probably on a 60-80' line and could potentially crash into your dock.

[OurVLX4fun]

i don't know about Missouri, but in California, you'd be responsible. It's the law. You are always responsible for any damage caused by your wake.

The hard thing is to prove a specific boat's wake caused damage to your boat.

In scenario #2, I've done this many times and never had a problem. But then again I would expect a couple boat's that are rafted up to hold each other off , assuming there are people on the boats, as a wake hit them, to prevent damage.

vlxjeff

I have never heard of this if you are in a no wake zone i could see you be responsible but in a cove that is not regulated and you stay a "safe" distance away how can that be the law. If so can you show me where i can see that in writing.

Thanks

[VinRLX]

If so can you show me where i can see that in writing.

Thanks

Here's one place, but I'm sure there are more.

You should be careful of the amount of wake that you are leaving when operating close to shore. You are responsible for any damage you cause with your wake. Control your speed and obey speed limit signs.

Because sound carries farther over water than land, especially at night, you should keep voices, music and other noises to a minimum if anchored near a waterfront property.

[VinRLX]

from Oregon

Legal Responsibility

Remember, you are legally responsible for your wake

and the damage or personal injury it causes no matter

how large or small the wake. So protect yourself and

others by limiting your wake. The cost of repairing

someone’s boat or dock or paying their medical bill may

far outweigh the inconvenience of slowing down, and a

day free of conflicts will be much more enjoyable for

everyone.

Mississippi River

The best way to do this is to always be aware of the wake behind your craft and what it looks like as it

impacts the shore. As a boat operator, you need to know that you are legally responsible for your wake under both federal and state law.

From the United States Power Squadron's National Safe Boating Test. (I scored 100%, but it's pretty easy.) Any answer to the following question other than 'B' is incorrect.

10. Damage caused by a boat's wake is the responsibility of the:

boat owner.

boat operator.

owner of the damaged property.

both the boat owner and boat operator.

There's tons more, search it yourself and see. . .

Edited September 25, 2008 by VinRLX

[Liquidmx]

So really, if we wanted to open this can o worms. If I hit a double up and blew my knee out landing on a rouge roller your boat sent my way, that's your liability right? You gonna pay my medical bills and time off work?

[VinRLX]

Me? Nah. Hypothetically, your driver--for operating in an imprudent, erratic, and reckless manner. I was maneuvering to avoid collision. Besides, my boat can't send rogue rollers, only rogue ripples.

[Addictedto6]

Liquidmx has a point. If that OR law is verbatim, that's scary. I'd make my reg numbers really tiny if I had a heavy ballast system.

[VinRLX]

Liquidmx has a point. If that OR law is verbatim, that's scary.

Yes, he does actually. I was being somewhat facetious in my reply, but also trying to draw attention to interpretation of laws.

Given the hypothetical situation, there would be questions regarding negligence on the part of either driver and questions as to assumed risk by the boarder. Or at least that's how I would imagine a court situation would play out.

[etherbunny]

Tell us how you voted and why.

Tell us your strategy for doing what you love while attempting to keep the peace.

Is this a trick question? The law here in Ms. is that you are responsible for your wake regardless of posted signs or not.

There is no easy solution. We are fortunate to have plenty of non-populated areas to ride and otherwise you slow down, remember your

on the water and not stuck at a desk and hope they extend the same courtesy if you are rafting.

[gmoneycrf450]

Tell us how you voted and why.

Tell us your strategy for doing what you love while attempting to keep the peace.

If it is a no wake zone and you are maintaining a safe distance, it is the responsibility of the boat owner that is either tied off to the dock or to another boat to take the necessary precautions to install bumpers in the right locations to not damage the gel coat or other boats....PERIOD

[VinRLX]

Umm, if it's a no wake zone...shouldn't you not be producing a wake? Oh, and they're called fenders--bumpers are for cars.

[Liquidmx]

I think he is saying that if he were outside the no wake zone making a wake that floats into a no wake zone its not his bad. Its kind of like sitting in a no smoking section and suing the restaurant for second hand smoke that lingered over from the smoking section. Common logic tells you that by simply segregating the two wont eliminate all the smoke.

[JeffS]

If you've ever been on the other side of this issue - this thread is an interesting to read.

Here's an example - real world - me - I have a 43' Express. Have been tied up in a 4 boat raft up on Lake Michigan.

Near the shoreline - just off a beach. All boats of similar size and weight.

Dumba$$ in a 44' Sundancer plows by, too close given his operating speed, not quite on plane - throws a massive wake and knocks the crap out of our raft up. After 20 years at this, I know how to tie in a raft up, I wasn't the dumb one in the equation and none of the other big boat owners who know were with me were negligent either. It's Lake Michigan. It's not like there was traffic farther out - the captain was just a dumba$$.

That massive screw up on the part of the captain of the 44 Dancer did about $85,000 damage to the boats in that raft up. And he was indeed held responsible. One of the boats was a 58' Viking Battlewagon Offshore Fishing Boat. About $1.8Million worth of boat. He sustained the worst damage as he was in the center position. All cosmetic stuff for sure - but still - the only person who did anything wrong or stupid was the person at the helm of the 44 Dancer. And he should indeed be responsible for the $85k (and he was).

That's why the CG regs state that you are responsible for your wake. And on waters not federally navigable and out of the jurisdiction of USCG - most states have laws that cover this point in the exact same way.

Or, more in line with this discussion board - I watched this one...a nice Supra - over $50k worth of boat...pulling a wakeboarder on an inland lake taking advantage of early morning glass. Rowing skiff taking the same opportunity. Supra's ballast engorged wake swamps the skiff. News for Supra - he buys the repairs on the skiff. Not only did he violate right of way issues of a boat-not-under-mechanical-power...but he caused damage and endangered life in the process. And never stopped to offer assistance.

'twas interesting to see the poll results. It's not a matter of opinion folks - you - boating in a prudent way with a safe lookout of sight and hearing so as not to cause damage to property or endanger life...yep...that would be the law. It's pretty much non-negotiable black and white. And it also protects you from stupid people who don't know what their doing at the helm of a boat.

I'm a newbie here and don't want to come off all-know-it-all (big turnoff I know) - but I'm a really long time boater behind the helm of lots of boats. This one caught me by surprise that 80% would say no to being responsible for their wake. It is what it is - a law on most inland lakes and a USCG reg on any federally controlled navigable waterway.

Cheers everyone - stay safe out there.

[VinRLX]

That massive screw up on the part of the captain of the 44 Dancer did about $85,000 damage to the boats in that raft up. And he was indeed held responsible. . . And he should indeed be responsible for the $85k (and he was).

It's not a matter of opinion folks - you - boating in a prudent way with a safe lookout of sight and hearing so as not to cause damage to property or endanger life...yep...that would be the law. It's pretty much non-negotiable black and white.

Thanks for the real world experience. Too much opinion is being justified by operating in what some may consider a reasonable manner. Call it common sense, perhaps? Unfortunately, many do not understand maritime law. Ignorance can not be used as a defense.

[JeffS]

Thanks for the real world experience. Too much opinion is being justified by operating in what some may consider a reasonable manner. Call it common sense, perhaps? Unfortunately, many do not understand maritime law. Ignorance can not be used as a defense.

You are very welcome - and even though this thread is way old - I hope it gets a look. Appreciate the support.

For everyone's info if not already aware - that sentence..."command of your vessel in a safe and prudent manner with lookout of site and hearing..." that IS the USCG reg. And if you've ever been boarded by USCG - they're not police - they're military. They are not bound by reasonable cause for search and siezure laws because they are not police - they're military. They are the front line of Homeland Security which has super-broad capabilities that would seem to defy your personal rights of property ownership, AND...they no longer have a sense of humor that they know of. Just a heads up.

Again - I'm a newbie - and don't want to come off wrong - but I really know this stuff. I taught my teen sons to command big boats - and went through lots of school with them in the process.

Cheers everyone.

Edited June 12, 2009 by JeffS

[Brad B]

They are fenders not bumpers

[srud]

I try hard to be responsible for my wake. Where we ride (wakeboard or surfing) there frequently are people out in canoes or kayaks. There have been several instances where I've had to drop the person behind the boat in the water to avoid swamping a kayak or a canoe. We try to avoid the parts of the lake where they frequent, but every now and then one will venture farther away from the campground.

[Liquidmx]

I am all for boating in a responsible manner but by the definition everyone is talking about... this following scenario could very well happen (which is why so many people seem to take the side that they are not responsible for their wake, and I agree in this scenario given).

We wake up at 6:30 am to get a nice morning butter session in a cove on the lake. A few hours later as we are still pulling riders a fisherman in a small john boat (rowing team, family boat, pick your poison) enters the cove with FULL knowledge that we are wakeboarding there, rollers are going back and forth, etc. He still sets up shop right in the cove we have been in for several hours without any issues. In my opinion that's like running onto a busy street and expecting people to stop since you have the right of way as a pedestrian. That boat entered an area where there was already an activity taking place and they proceeded at their own risk. Sorry, in this situation if their vessel received damage because of their wake, that's their fault in my opinion. If we followed the "letter of the law" nobody would ever get to wakeboard because of situations like this.

[JeffS]

Just one more from me...

Liquid MX - I don't disagree that it sucks for wakeboard boats. But that is the law. If I'm in New York, and a super-spry 100 year old man jogs down the sidewalk, then enters a crosswalk and shuffles across the street taking 10 minutes to cross - he has the right of way over me there too. It doesn't matter if I left the house earlier to beat traffic. That 100 year old man shuffling through the intersection has the right of way. It doesn't matter if I like or don't, agree or don't, right of way laws are only letter-of-the-law laws. They're black and white.

First-come-first-serve is the law of the land at Dairy Queen, but not in your glassy cove. All of the boats that you mentioned have right of way over a ski boat pulling wakeboarders in a cove. Fishing with lines in the water, boats restricted in maneuverability within their own wake, boats not under mechanical power, sail boats under sail, etc., there's another thread running about boating safety courses - all of this stuff is in that course. Recreational boating under power is the lowest-priority form of boating. Every other types of boating has priority over us.

For anyone in denial that the law is the law... opinions about that law are interesting but irrelevant. If someone that can be damaged by my wake shows up in my path, I shut it down. It's expensive to be wrong in this case - whether I agree or disagree - if I cause damage with my wake - I am responsible for that damage. For those that enjoy the water in a rowing skiff - they have as much right to be wherever I am as I do...safely. And safely to them, means I am not throwing 3' rollers. One last thing - speaking of a rowing skiff (because I saw this exact situation happen live and in person) - if I swamp a skiff and not only cause damage but endanger life, and don't offer assistance, I may also have criminal issues to contend with. Just like leaving the scene of an accident in a car. And in that case - civil damages over and above repairs to the other vessel are likely.

A constructive way to handle the situation if a family shows up to fish where you have been boarding for 2 hours - drop your tow, putter over and politely ask - "we've been here a couple of hours, and are taking advantage of the water conditions. We'd like to keep going for another hour or so but our wake might endanger your vessel. May we continue? Or can you come back to this cove in an hour or so?" I think you might be blown away at how far that kind of courtesy will get you.

I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news - but for the 80% of people who say they are not responsible for their wake - that's 80% of the people who are just simply incorrect. Sorry for that. :-)

Cheers everyone.

Stay safe out there. :-)

[CrazyTegger]

Well said Jeff. I hate ignorance.

[Liquidmx]

What ever happened to logic? The argument of "the law is the law" is (in my opinion) what's ruining this country. Here is CA personal defense attorney's are making a killing by using your logic Jeff. Right wrong or indifferent at what point is America's population simply catering to the idiots without any logic with these laws? Climbing into bear cages at zoo's, shooting rocks at Tigers, etc. I guess these "upstanding citizens deserve to be reimbursed since they were attacked due to "not breaking the law". Extrapolating all these scenarios should at the very least demonstrate how ludicrous it is to simply exclaim "it's the law, deal with it" (see my post earlier about blowing my knee out landing on a roller your boat created in a wake zone). By your very definition the criminal who fell on the kitchen knife and sued the homeowner is completely in the right here as "it was the law". Sorry, but I have a very different perception of things. Just because a few lawmakers decided to pass a law about something doesn't make it morally or ethically right (or even logically correct).

Its not black and white, and the very idea that it is or should be is quite naive.

[JeffS]

Oh...liquidmx...it is 100% black and white.

You disagreeing with it is one thing. Believing that you are somehow correct simply because you disagree is completely a different issue. I certainly won't call you naive as you did me because that's rude...but I will stand firm that you are incorrect.

The legal system doesn't give a flying f what your opinion is. If the law says you are responsible for your wake - you are responsible for your wake. The law does not SAY that you are responsible for a robber that falls on your knife. Personal injury attorney's have made that precedent. The law does not SAY that zoo is responsible if someone climbs into a bear cage - personal injury attorneys again...they created that precedence.

You are 100% confusing court precedence (that you think is foolish) created by greedy personal injury attorneys that have allowed stupid people to claim damages for their own dumb actions. That's totally different than violating a law. And quite honestly - it's people that most feverishly disagree with this law...yeah...those are the ones that make it so relevant. The person who rows has as much right to be on the water that you are on as you do. First come first serve - ummm....doesn't apply to the priority of vessels in a waterway. Sorry man. Argue all you want - the law is the law. I believe that I cannot convince you. Just don't hurt anyone please...if you truly intend to test how incorrect you are. The police, USCG, DNR and courts will help you understand if you truly decide to test the issue.

[JohnDoe]

The legal system doesn't give a flying f what your opinion is. If the law says you are responsible for your wake - you are responsible for your wake. The law does not SAY that you are responsible for a robber that falls on your knife. Personal injury attorney's have made that precedent. The law does not SAY that zoo is responsible if someone climbs into a bear cage - personal injury attorneys again...they created that precedence.

You are 100% confusing court precedence (that you think is foolish) created by greedy personal injury attorneys that have allowed stupid people to claim damages for their own dumb actions.

Just for clarification, personal injury attorneys do not create precedent. Precedent comes from court opinions (usually appellate), which are written by judges, which apply the facts of a case to the law. Not sure how anyone would think that an attorney has anything to do with the establishment of precendent, because they don't.

Can someone please provide a link any of the cases that liquidmx complained of? You do realize there is a difference between filing suit and winning, correct? I really, really want to read the opinion if a robber was successful in recovering damages from a victim homeowner. Something has been misreported, I suspect.

As to the discussion at hand, jeff, you are basically saying that boaters are strictly liable for the damages their wakes may cause. I really don't know if that's the case or not as strict liability, for anything, is rare, but perhaps you're right. However, If a negligence standard applies, then the "defendant" MAY be able to raise any number of defenses such as assumption to risk, comparative negligence (in some states), etc.

Edited June 19, 2009 by JohnDoe