Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Are You Responsible for Your Wake?


Tom Sawyer

Are You Responsible for Your Wake?  

432 members have voted

  1. 1. Scenario 1 - You go to your favorite cove to find that a dock has been installed and a boat is tied up there. You continue with your activity of choice. Even though the cove is NOT a no-wake cove, and you maintain a "Safe" distance from the dock, your wake rocks the boat and damages the gel coat

    • You are responsible for the damage done to the boat.
      96
    • You are not responsible for the damage done to the boat.
      336
  2. 2. Scenario 2 - You go to your favorite cove to find two boats floating together. Once again, you continue with your activity of choice. Even though it is NOT a no-wake cove, and you stay a "Safe" distance from the other two boats, they bump together and are damaged.

    • You are responsible for damage done to either or both boats
      71
    • You are not responsible for damage done to either boat.
      361


Recommended Posts

WHAAAAAAAT?

WHAAAAAAAT?

OKAAAAAAAAY!

(sorry, I could not resist some reference to little john...) Whistling.gif

i was waiting for someone to do that! Thumbup.gif

trying to sue someone for damage that another wake causes (in the severity that the original question asks) would be laughed at here in aus. you would be told to harden the fruitcake up! You guys have to put up with too much BS sometimes. Scratching of gelcoat and general cosmetic damage could be caused by many reasons, not just someones wake. if your boat is not properly secured to withstand various water conditions that could be caused by a wake or sudden freak storm etc that is your problem. but if my actions while underway were not considered safe by driving too close to docks, or in a way that was inappropriate for the waterway then the story is different. i do have a problem with fully loaded wake boats on one of my regular waterways because the width of the river is inappropriate and not enough clearance is allowable with other boats. but when i am in an area where i have a concern about possible damage to my boat caused by others wakes i am responsible to take preventative measures to reduce the chances. These vessels are permitted to be on the waterway (for the time being) so fellow users need to accommodate them for normal use.

In the case of that poor bloke who had his 03 blue RLXi swamped and sunk to the tower on a houseboat trip at powell or mead? a few years back by a 40ft cruiser would have every right IMO to sue because that boater was not acting in a safe manner by driving too close to other craft given the size of his vessel and the surrounding craft.

good to see some serious discussion Thumbup.gif

I'll have to remember that one. Biggrin.gif

Link to comment
WHAAAAAAAT?

WHAAAAAAAT?

OKAAAAAAAAY!

(sorry, I could not resist some reference to little john...) Whistling.gif

i was waiting for someone to do that! Thumbup.gif

trying to sue someone for damage that another wake causes (in the severity that the original question asks) would be laughed at here in aus. you

You'd be laughed at here too. Point of discussion wasn't about suing, just whether you're responsible. Secondly, if lawsuit was ever warranted for something serious, it may also mean that insufficient liability coverage was purchased, or that the insurer just didn't want to pay.

Link to comment

Wasn't it here in the good ole US of A that McDonalds was sued (successfully if I recall) by a customer who burned himself with the hot coffee they served him? I bet that guy laughed all right...all the way to the bank!!!!

If Mc D's would have just "Manned Up" and taken responsibility for their actions, no lawsuit would have been necessary.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

Link to comment

Actually SHE (a woman in her 70s) didn't get very much at all (she spent 8 days in the hospital, and had third degree burns) but the Judge reduced verdict for her to $160,000, and the large verdict was for punitive damages, which was also reduced. The jury heard the evidence of McDonalds serving coffee a temperature it knows is higher than all other restaurants, knowingly causes 3rd degree burns as it did here, had been written hundredss of letters asking them to turn the temp down to an acceptable level, and the jury felt the only thing that would get McD's attention was a punitive damage award. Actually, if McDonalds had "manned up", yes they would have paid her $20,000 offer, but more importantly, wouldn't knowingly put their customers at risk for this situation.

Link to comment

The reason that McDonald's lost (or settled?) that suit was because they required their restraints to serve coffee kept at 190 degrees. 190 degrees is plenty hot to cause severe burns, which is why they would have or did lose the case. While I think that if you spill hot coffee on yourself that you don't have anyone else to blame, our legal system says that if you knowingly serve coffee that is that hot you are liable.

I think that the issue with enhanced wakes will eventually be viewed in a similar way. If you know that creating a 3' to 4' tall wake by using ballast or other wake enhancement methods can possibly cause damage to docks, boats, shore line etc., the court system could find you to be negligent. Whether you agree or disagree, the legal system will very likely eventually come to this conclusion.

Link to comment
The reason that McDonald's lost (or settled?) that suit was because they required their restraints to serve coffee kept at 190 degrees. 190 degrees is plenty hot to cause severe burns, which is why they would have or did lose the case. While I think that if you spill hot coffee on yourself that you don't have anyone else to blame, our legal system says that if you knowingly serve coffee that is that hot you are liable.

I think that the issue with enhanced wakes will eventually be viewed in a similar way. If you know that creating a 3' to 4' tall wake by using ballast or other wake enhancement methods can possibly cause damage to docks, boats, shore line etc., the court system could find you to be negligent. Whether you agree or disagree, the legal system will very likely eventually come to this conclusion.

I like the fact that on every single McDonald's coffee cup, FOR YEARS it has said CAUTION HOT!

That a-hole that sued them should be counter sued for not being able to freaking READ!

This country is too sue happy. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore..blame someone else, it is the American way! Just like it was McDonald's fault that person spilled the cup in the first place. Incompetent people can't even hold on to a cup...oh that's right they must have been trying to answer their Cell Phone, drive and put on their makeup at the same time they spilled the cup of coffee. NOT thier fault, right?

What if it was a Coke and they got all sticky..could they sue for McD's having too much Corn Syrup in it's fountain drinks? HAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Link to comment
Actually SHE (a woman in her 70s) didn't get very much at all (she spent 8 days in the hospital, and had third degree burns) but the Judge reduced verdict for her to $160,000, and the large verdict was for punitive damages, which was also reduced. The jury heard the evidence of McDonalds serving coffee a temperature it knows is higher than all other restaurants, knowingly causes 3rd degree burns as it did here, had been written hundredss of letters asking them to turn the temp down to an acceptable level, and the jury felt the only thing that would get McD's attention was a punitive damage award. Actually, if McDonalds had "manned up", yes they would have paid her $20,000 offer, but more importantly, wouldn't knowingly put their customers at risk for this situation.

Is this why boat manufactures should be held responsible for carbon monoxide related fatalities that result from "teak surfing"???

I'm mean, they know their product emits a deadly, odorless and colorless gas, right?

Please.

Link to comment
Actually SHE (a woman in her 70s) didn't get very much at all (she spent 8 days in the hospital, and had third degree burns) but the Judge reduced verdict for her to $160,000, and the large verdict was for punitive damages, which was also reduced. The jury heard the evidence of McDonalds serving coffee a temperature it knows is higher than all other restaurants, knowingly causes 3rd degree burns as it did here, had been written hundredss of letters asking them to turn the temp down to an acceptable level, and the jury felt the only thing that would get McD's attention was a punitive damage award. Actually, if McDonalds had "manned up", yes they would have paid her $20,000 offer, but more importantly, wouldn't knowingly put their customers at risk for this situation.

Is this why boat manufactures should be held responsible for carbon monoxide related fatalities that result from "teak surfing"???

I'm mean, they know their product emits a deadly, odorless and colorless gas, right?

Please.

I was thinking that very thing, that the teak surfing issue was a better comparison. There were 2 lawsuits in California where 1 kid died, & another almost did because they were teak surfing without life jackets. Both kids were under the legal age, & by law should have been wearing life jackets, yet both families felt that that somehow wasn't their responsibility & as a result sued the boat manufacturers. To be clear, the official cause of death was from drowning, not asphyxiation, & all of the eyewitnesses were consistent in that the kid passed out & fell below the surface, & that it took a long time to find him. I don't remember the exact quote, but one of the dads said that had he known that the exhaust came out right there, he would never have put his kid in that situation. Well, if he had been educated about the existing law on the books, he wouldn't have. Who needs to man up in those situations? IMO, the families. They're at fault, they need to deal with their own negligence. Every machine that has a gas or diesel engine needs to expel its fumes somehow & in some way. Do car manufacturers need to educate new buyers about that? No, & neither should boat manufacturers.

I voted that you are responsible for your wake in both instances, because you are pure & simple. And as stated numerous times in this thread, that statement is backed by law. Again, be aware.

What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play. I ask because very few of the lakes that I regularly go to fall under this category, & as such that part is a non-issue. Yes, the party-cove is & I think that it again comes down to being aware. We don't intrude if someone is using a section of lake or a finger, but if it's empty with no signs, it's free game IMO. On the large busy lakes that we go to, I find it difficult to believe that it could be enforced unless you came inside of the 100' or 200' rule (200' with a skier in tow is the rule here). On a big, busy lake, that's something that would be difficult at best to pursue.

Link to comment
What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play.

All forms of wake enhancement have been banned on our lake. Clap.gif And the water cops are pretty good about checking too. They seem to have gotten some information from a private party on what to look for. Whistling.gif

Link to comment
I like the fact that on every single McDonald's coffee cup, FOR YEARS it has said CAUTION HOT!

That a-hole that sued them should be counter sued for not being able to freaking READ!

Just like it was McDonald's fault that person spilled the cup in the first place. Incompetent people can't even hold on to a cup...oh that's right they must have been trying to answer their Cell Phone, drive and put on their makeup at the same time they spilled the cup of coffee. NOT thier fault, right?

What if it was a Coke and they got all sticky..could they sue for McD's having too much Corn Syrup in it's fountain drinks? HAHAHAHAHAHHA!

She wasn't on the phone, wasn't putting makeup on, wasn't even driving for that matter. Everyone knows coffee is hot, she never thought otherwise, and could read perfectly fine. You think McDonalds wanted to put on the side of their cup that their coffee is "served 40 degrees hotter than other restaurants, will cause third degree burns, may require skin grafting, and you'll be responsible for your medical bills." I for one, have spilled plenty of coffee on myself. I didn't sue anybody. Why not? I wasn't hurt! Thats the whole point, this lady spent 8 days in the hospital because McD's reckelssly endangered its customers (as found by the jury). It is not congruous to the same thing happening at Burger King because BK already knew better, along with home coffee brewers, gas stations, restaurants, as well as everyone else having anything to do with consumer consumption of coffee. You don't serve cofee at 190 degrees. Why not? Because you know people are going to spill it! There is a difference betwen serving hot coffee and serving scalding hot coffee. McDonalds did the latter.

Secondly, she did bear responsibility, it's called comparative negligence, and her verdict was reduced by her contribution to the accident.

Same for teaksurfing issues, with which I'm personlaly not aware. It's not all or nothing, there is apportionment (in virtually all states), as there also could be for any property damage claim resulting from wakes. IS everyone under the impression that only one party can bear responsibility, because that is not the case.

Link to comment
yet both families felt that that somehow wasn't their responsibility & as a result sued the boat manufacturers.

You sure it was their families, or the personal representative of the estate of the deceased boy, and the "family" "on behalf of" the buy who almost died? The distinction is huge.

Link to comment

I'm not sure about the other, but one of them had statements all over the press by the father that indicated that he felt that way. Now whether or not he was led to believe that by the personal representatives, I don't know. But the father definitely bought into it if his statements in the press were accurate.

Link to comment
What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play. I ask because very few of the lakes that I regularly go to fall under this category, & as such that part is a non-issue. Yes, the party-cove is & I think that it again comes down to being aware. We don't intrude if someone is using a section of lake or a finger, but if it's empty with no signs, it's free game IMO. On the large busy lakes that we go to, I find it difficult to believe that it could be enforced unless you came inside of the 100' or 200' rule (200' with a skier in tow is the rule here). On a big, busy lake, that's something that would be difficult at best to pursue.

I just found out that Lake Tapps (SE of Seattle) has a new law in the books. Apparently your not allowed to tie boats up into a big raft any more.... like in a party cove. I guess the law was in place last year too but the fine was only like $60. I was told this year they raised it to $600.

I'm not sure if it's because of the noise/loud music or some safety issue. They have some really small coves there & I know at least one of them used to get completely packed with parked boats.

Link to comment
I'm not sure about the other, but one of them had statements all over the press by the father that indicated that he felt that way. Now whether or not he was led to believe that by the personal representatives, I don't know. But the father definitely bought into it if his statements in the press were accurate.

My point is only that just because the Dad doesn't think he's responsible doesn't necessarily justify your statement that: "both families felt that that somehow wasn't their responsibility & as a result sued the boat manufacturers". My point is just that it may not have even been the family who brought those claims (I don't know CA law), I just felt compelled to point out that perhaps the family wasn't being litigious at all. But I don't know, and we don't need to discuss anymore. I do know that warning labels are now on the back of new boats and if it prevents one future drowning, they'll all be worth it in my opinion.

Edited by JohnDoe
Link to comment
I'm not sure about the other, but one of them had statements all over the press by the father that indicated that he felt that way. Now whether or not he was led to believe that by the personal representatives, I don't know. But the father definitely bought into it if his statements in the press were accurate.

My point is only that just because the Dad doesn't think he's responsible doesn't necessarily justify your statement that: "both families felt that that somehow wasn't their responsibility & as a result sued the boat manufacturers". My point is just that it may not have even been the family who brought those claims (I don't know CA law), I just felt compelled to point out that perhaps the family wasn't being litigious at all. But I don't know, and we don't need to discuss anymore. I do know that warning labels are now on the back of new boats and if it prevents one future drowning, they'll all be worth it in my opinion.

Agreed, no need to further hijack the discussion. I just thought that at least with the way that it appeared in the press, the teak surfing incidents that we've seen out here in the west are a pretty good comparison to this discussion of responsibility of your wake.

Link to comment

The very fact that there is a lame warning sticker on the bottom of all wakeboards is testament to how sue happy the U.S. is. Sorry, Ish happens, accept it and move on with the fact that some accidents may happen to you.

The saddest part about a lot of lame lawsuits is that the company's settle out of it being cheaper to settle than roll the dice and negative pr related to litigation.

Norcalbu, sounds like your a wakeboard hater.... Any specific reasons why?

Link to comment
Norcalbu, sounds like your a wakeboard hater.... Any specific reasons why?

I don't hate wakeboards (or wakeboarders). Our lake is only ~330 acres and big wakes can make it dangerous in a hurry. I'd like to see our BOD ban tubes as well as the zig-zag driving on such a small body of water has resulted in numerous close calls over the years and it's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes. Lake Arrowhead banned tubes for that very reason and it's twice the size of Wildwood.

What I don't like about "wakeboarding" as a sport in general is how it brought some many new people out onto the water (and yes that's me being selfish Biggrin.gif ) Not only does it make flat water harder to find but a lot of newbies on the water means a lot of people that have no clue as to boating etiquette and safe boating practices (not to say that there aren't rude skiers as well but more newbies prefer boarding to skiing because boarding is so much easier). Now combine that with huge wakes (rolling towards my little to no freeboard slalom tractor) and foul-mouthed music blaring over more speakers than I have in my house...and it makes me not care for wakeboard boats very much.

[/hi-jack]

I'll be responsible for my wake. Yes.gif

Link to comment
I voted that you are responsible for your wake in both instances, because you are pure & simple. And as stated numerous times in this thread, that statement is backed by law. Again, be aware.

No doubt irresponsible use of any craft is idiotic, unsafe and in the event of damage your toast. BUT, i find it hard to take responsibility when a boat is acting in a normal safe manner. Your wake machine is a permitted craft on the waterways you use. So because some other dim wit does not secure his boat accordingly to the conditions, you are responsible under law when damage occurs?

Basically, you can be sued and are liable for not doing anything wrong?

only in america...

Like i said in my last post, wake makers are not an appropriate boat for many aus waterways, but until they are banned (which will happen in some areas) other users need to accommodate them using the water.

Link to comment
I voted that you are responsible for your wake in both instances, because you are pure & simple. And as stated numerous times in this thread, that statement is backed by law. Again, be aware.

No doubt irresponsible use of any craft is idiotic, unsafe and in the event of damage your toast. BUT, i find it hard to take responsibility when a boat is acting in a normal safe manner. Your wake machine is a permitted craft on the waterways you use. So because some other dim wit does not secure his boat accordingly to the conditions, you are responsible under law when damage occurs?

Basically, you can be sued and are liable for not doing anything wrong?

only in america...

Like i said in my last post, wake makers are not an appropriate boat for many aus waterways, but until they are banned (which will happen in some areas) other users need to accommodate them using the water.

In most cases, yes. But I would suspect that in most cases it's a hard thing to prove & actually hold your feet to the fire over. It all depends on the situation though, stewart makes a really good point. There are so many possibilities that this is one of those issues where the sky is the limit.

Link to comment
Actually SHE (a woman in her 70s) didn't get very much at all (she spent 8 days in the hospital, and had third degree burns) but the Judge reduced verdict for her to $160,000, and the large verdict was for punitive damages, which was also reduced. The jury heard the evidence of McDonalds serving coffee a temperature it knows is higher than all other restaurants, knowingly causes 3rd degree burns as it did here, had been written hundredss of letters asking them to turn the temp down to an acceptable level, and the jury felt the only thing that would get McD's attention was a punitive damage award. Actually, if McDonalds had "manned up", yes they would have paid her $20,000 offer, but more importantly, wouldn't knowingly put their customers at risk for this situation.

She ended up having more in legal fees than her final settlement after the appeal. I happen to know a bit about this matter as the carrier I worked for at the time had the policy.

Link to comment
What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play. I ask because very few of the lakes that I regularly go to fall under this category, & as such that part is a non-issue. Yes, the party-cove is & I think that it again comes down to being aware. We don't intrude if someone is using a section of lake or a finger, but if it's empty with no signs, it's free game IMO. On the large busy lakes that we go to, I find it difficult to believe that it could be enforced unless you came inside of the 100' or 200' rule (200' with a skier in tow is the rule here). On a big, busy lake, that's something that would be difficult at best to pursue.

I just found out that Lake Tapps (SE of Seattle) has a new law in the books. Apparently your not allowed to tie boats up into a big raft any more.... like in a party cove. I guess the law was in place last year too but the fine was only like $60. I was told this year they raised it to $600.

I'm not sure if it's because of the noise/loud music or some safety issue. They have some really small coves there & I know at least one of them used to get completely packed with parked boats.

I was asked my location in a previous thread..............WELCOME TO WASHINGTON! home of the happy ticket writers.

Norcalbu, sounds like your a wakeboard hater.... Any specific reasons why?

I don't hate wakeboards (or wakeboarders). Our lake is only ~330 acres and big wakes can make it dangerous in a hurry. I'd like to see our BOD ban tubes as well as the zig-zag driving on such a small body of water has resulted in numerous close calls over the years and it's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes. Lake Arrowhead banned tubes for that very reason and it's twice the size of Wildwood.

What I don't like about "wakeboarding" as a sport in general is how it brought some many new people out onto the water (and yes that's me being selfish Biggrin.gif ) Not only does it make flat water harder to find but a lot of newbies on the water means a lot of people that have no clue as to boating etiquette and safe boating practices (not to say that there aren't rude skiers as well but more newbies prefer boarding to skiing because boarding is so much easier). Now combine that with huge wakes (rolling towards my little to no freeboard slalom tractor) and foul-mouthed music blaring over more speakers than I have in my house...and it makes me not care for wakeboard boats very much.

[/hi-jack]

I'll be responsible for my wake. Yes.gif

Amen I feel your pain! I live on a 280 acre lake and I feel we are one fatality away from a 5 mph speed limit. With all the bulkheads I think the ocean is calmer on most days.

I have lived here for 37 years and have never had to deal with weather waves like man made wakes. They are two different powers and distances apart. With a 30 mph wind the surge is consistent, with man made you lose that and no matter how you prepare there will always be that one in a million where size and angle will tear up the best prepared tie up.

Link to comment
Let me ask this can I sue mother nature when an earthquake knocks my chimney over? Can I sue the god of lightning for starting a forest fire that burned down my cabin? In my eyes America needs to grow up and start taking responsibility for its own actions. If you cant tie up your boat so it doesn't get damaged then you better start sending the gel coat repair man a bottle of whiskey for Christmas. If you cant afford to fix it don't own it. The reality is that LIFE happens you can roll with it and be happy or you can fight it and be miserable. we all complain about the countless laws in this country. Well guess what those laws came from some cry baby who went and sued someone and had a better lawyer. MAN UP AMERICA!

So America should start taking responsibility for its own actions except for when it comes to the boat wake it creates? The responsibility goes both ways. I am one of those people who likes to spend a lot of time tied up in a cove, often to other boats, to sit, listen to music, have drink, soak up some sun etc... That is hard to enjoy when I have to jump into action every five minutes to hold boats apart while wake comes in. That being said lakes are first come first serve, if I get to a cove where someone is wakeboarding, or surfing I'm not going to go in there and tie up, that is asking for a fight, and vise versa when I get to a cove to board and there is someone tied up. I have yet to deal with this on my lake, but I am sure I will sooner than later. With gas prices there are a lot more people just going out and floating in big floatiallas. And yes it is also state law in here.

Link to comment
What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play.

All forms of wake enhancement have been banned on our lake. Clap.gif And the water cops are pretty good about checking too. They seem to have gotten some information from a private party on what to look for. Whistling.gif

Does that include people that are overweight? Whistling.gif

Link to comment
What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play. I ask because very few of the lakes that I regularly go to fall under this category, & as such that part is a non-issue.

That's really at the heart of the problem. I know of several lakes where it would not be possible to throw a wake and have it not reach someone's lakefront property. Do the folks that do not own property on these PUBLIC lakes have a right to use them or not?

I don't have any problems with restrictions on boat sizes or wake enhancing devices, but I think it's BS that the law doesn't recognize the responsibility people should have to protect themselves and their property from the effects of reasonable boat wakes.

Link to comment
What I'm curious about is how many here boat on lakes where the homeowner issue comes into play. I ask because very few of the lakes that I regularly go to fall under this category, & as such that part is a non-issue. Yes, the party-cove is & I think that it again comes down to being aware. We don't intrude if someone is using a section of lake or a finger, but if it's empty with no signs, it's free game IMO. On the large busy lakes that we go to, I find it difficult to believe that it could be enforced unless you came inside of the 100' or 200' rule (200' with a skier in tow is the rule here). On a big, busy lake, that's something that would be difficult at best to pursue.

I just found out that Lake Tapps (SE of Seattle) has a new law in the books. Apparently your not allowed to tie boats up into a big raft any more.... like in a party cove. I guess the law was in place last year too but the fine was only like $60. I was told this year they raised it to $600.

I'm not sure if it's because of the noise/loud music or some safety issue. They have some really small coves there & I know at least one of them used to get completely packed with parked boats.

Washington in general is cracking down on the big cove party tie ups. This is coming from a legal case that the state just lost. A young girl was gang rapped on lake washigton and claims that durring this experiance the lk. wa. police had driven by and not stopped to help her.

Let me ask this can I sue mother nature when an earthquake knocks my chimney over? Can I sue the god of lightning for starting a forest fire that burned down my cabin? In my eyes America needs to grow up and start taking responsibility for its own actions. If you cant tie up your boat so it doesn't get damaged then you better start sending the gel coat repair man a bottle of whiskey for Christmas. If you cant afford to fix it don't own it. The reality is that LIFE happens you can roll with it and be happy or you can fight it and be miserable. we all complain about the countless laws in this country. Well guess what those laws came from some cry baby who went and sued someone and had a better lawyer. MAN UP AMERICA!

So America should start taking responsibility for its own actions except for when it comes to the boat wake it creates? The responsibility goes both ways. I am one of those people who likes to spend a lot of time tied up in a cove, often to other boats, to sit, listen to music, have drink, soak up some sun etc... That is hard to enjoy when I have to jump into action every five minutes to hold boats apart while wake comes in. That being said lakes are first come first serve, if I get to a cove where someone is wakeboarding, or surfing I'm not going to go in there and tie up, that is asking for a fight, and vise versa when I get to a cove to board and there is someone tied up. I have yet to deal with this on my lake, but I am sure I will sooner than later. With gas prices there are a lot more people just going out and floating in big floatiallas. And yes it is also state law in here.

MAN UP AMERICA= take responsability for your actions. ALL of your actions.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...