Bad time to jump:

[Domsz06]

i saw that a few weeks ago. how dumb to you have to be to even try that when the water is lower?

i was thinking why are you trying that when the water is that high, but that's just me.

[raythompson]

The driver is lucky that he was not/will not be sued.

Check the laws regarding water sports. Water sports are considered an "at risk" activity. Unless the driver is clearly negligent injuries cannot be blamed on the driver. In this case the driver was merely operating the boat and going under a bridge with adequate clearance would not be negligent. The boarder was the one that did the jump, something the driver could not control, so the boarder would be at fault.

Of course you can always sue for whatever. However, the court would likely not side with the plaintiff.

And we all know that in reality the driver was in on the stunt and probably encouraged, threw down the gauntlet, challenged, and otherwise sponsored another "bubba" event.

[da.bell]

Check the laws regarding water sports. Water sports are considered an "at risk" activity. Unless the driver is clearly negligent injuries cannot be blamed on the driver. In this case the driver was merely operating the boat and going under a bridge with adequate clearance would not be negligent. The boarder was the one that did the jump, something the driver could not control, so the boarder would be at fault.

Of course you can always sue for whatever. However, the court would likely not side with the plaintiff.

And we all know that in reality the driver was in on the stunt and probably encouraged, threw down the gauntlet, challenged, and otherwise sponsored another "bubba" event.

From what I have understood, the driver was operating at wakeboarding speeds in a 5 mph zone. I think negligence would play a part in this.

[chpthril]

Check the laws regarding water sports. Water sports are considered an "at risk" activity. Unless the driver is clearly negligent injuries cannot be blamed on the driver. In this case the driver was merely operating the boat and going under a bridge with adequate clearance would not be negligent. The boarder was the one that did the jump, something the driver could not control, so the boarder would be at fault.

Of course you can always sue for whatever. However, the court would likely not side with the plaintiff.

And we all know that in reality the driver was in on the stunt and probably encouraged, threw down the gauntlet, challenged, and otherwise sponsored another "bubba" event.

Well, being a licensed insurance agent, I am very familiar with how these things turn out.

First, the boat owners Med Pay would be a "good will" gesture to pay for the boarder's injuries. But once those limits are exhausted, his liability portion could be called on to cover the rest. Then there is lost wages, loss of mobility, pain and suffering. Just like your auto policy's Med Pay ( may want to read yours) you, as the operator, are responsible for the injuries of your passenger, whether or not you were "negligent" If someone slips getting into your boat and hurts themselves........your liable, if someone gets hurt tubing, skiing, surfing, and even doing a dumb @$$ stunt like that.........you are liable.

Bottom line is, the boarder would never have hit the bridge if the driver had not broken the law by speeding under the bridge above "no wake" speed, and pulling a rider within 100ft of docks, piers, pilings and other water craft. So in my opinion, The driver was Negligent in the operation of his boat.

[Original Wing Nut]

i think there is a quote on hear that says "stupid hurts" ding ding ding we have a winner. can assure you he wont do that again!

You got it. "STUPID HURTS"

[Domsz06]

Well, being a licensed insurance agent, I am very familiar with how these things turn out.

First, the boat owners Med Pay would be a "good will" gesture to pay for the boarder's injuries. But once those limits are exhausted, his liability portion could be called on to cover the rest. Then there is lost wages, loss of mobility, pain and suffering. Just like your auto policy's Med Pay ( may want to read yours) you, as the operator, are responsible for the injuries of your passenger, whether or not you were "negligent" If someone slips getting into your boat and hurts themselves........your liable, if someone gets hurt tubing, skiing, surfing, and even doing a dumb @$$ stunt like that.........you are liable.

Bottom line is, the boarder would never have hit the bridge if the driver had not broken the law by speeding under the bridge above "no wake" speed, and pulling a rider within 100ft of docks, piers, pilings and other water craft. So in my opinion, The driver was Negligent in the operation of his boat.

i agree!!

[talltigeguy]

Well, being a licensed insurance agent, I am very familiar with how these things turn out.

First, the boat owners Med Pay would be a "good will" gesture to pay for the boarder's injuries. But once those limits are exhausted, his liability portion could be called on to cover the rest. Then there is lost wages, loss of mobility, pain and suffering. Just like your auto policy's Med Pay ( may want to read yours) you, as the operator, are responsible for the injuries of your passenger, whether or not you were "negligent" If someone slips getting into your boat and hurts themselves........your liable, if someone gets hurt tubing, skiing, surfing, and even doing a dumb @$$ stunt like that.........you are liable.

Bottom line is, the boarder would never have hit the bridge if the driver had not broken the law by speeding under the bridge above "no wake" speed, and pulling a rider within 100ft of docks, piers, pilings and other water craft. So in my opinion, The driver was Negligent in the operation of his boat.

People change their stories once the medical bills start piling up, too. 'I didn't think he was going over there, and just didn't see this coming.'

As stupid as it sounds, there are states where the juries clearly beleive that it is OK to take from the haves (insurance companies, doctors, etc.) and give to the have nots. In their minds, it is a matter of mercy, not liability. The guy is not likely to be normal ever again, so hey, he deserves a couple million dollars to get by with.

[chpthril]

People change their stories once the medical bills start piling up, too. 'I didn't think he was going over there, and just didn't see this coming.'

As stupid as it sounds, there are states where the juries clearly believe that it is OK to take from the haves (insurance companies, doctors, etc.) and give to the have nots. In their minds, it is a matter of mercy, not liability. The guy is not likely to be normal ever again, so hey, he deserves a couple million dollars to get by with.

You're right, Tall, stupid people are no longer held accountable for there own actions.........but deep pockets always pay

[Domsz06]

You're right, Tall, stupid people are no longer held accountable for there own actions.........but deep pockets always pay

you nailed that nail on the head!! I work for an oil company, I KNOW!!

[dogbert]

You're right, Tall, stupid people are no longer held accountable for there own actions.........but deep pockets always pay

Everybody's a victim! Seems worse in some states than others. It's right up there with the belief that it's the government's responsibility to take care of everybody. What ever happened to being socially responsible? What ever happened to accountability?

[chpthril]

What ever happened to accountability?

It went away when we stopped paddling in school (whole new topic)

[Domsz06]

It went away when we stopped paddling in school (whole new topic)

Your o so true!! last sunday I had an 8 top come sit at my bar's high tops, 4 adults 4 kids, I was freaking thrilled, however their kids were the most polite and calm kids EVER(they were all under 10-12) I told the parents as well.

You don't see that these days EVER!!

[raythompson]

Well, being a licensed insurance agent, I am very familiar with how these things turn out.
...
if someone gets hurt tubing, skiing, surfing, and even doing a dumb @$$ stunt like that.........you are liable.

Hmm, such was not the case when I used to take people parasailing in Texas. I specifically inquired about liability insurance when parasailing. I was informed that parasailing, water skiing, tubing, were all considered at risk activities. The person participating would know of the risk and assumed some level of the risk. Bottom line is that I was told that I did not need any additional liability insurance for parasailing.

Negligence was the only reason that I would be liable for injuries. Such negligence would be something like intentionally pulling someone in a parasail under a bridge or power lines. There is also that little overlooked item that if the boarder, skier, tuber thinks the driver is being reckless they can simply let go. Continuing to participate in reckless behavior implies some level of agreement and endorsing of the reckless behavior.

Regardless of the above, it was really stupid. Seems like a good 'ol boy stunt, "hey watch this".

[Domsz06]

Hmm, such was not the case when I used to take people parasailing in Texas. I specifically inquired about liability insurance when parasailing. I was informed that parasailing, water skiing, tubing, were all considered at risk activities. The person participating would know of the risk and assumed some level of the risk. Bottom line is that I was told that I did not need any additional liability insurance for parasailing.

Negligence was the only reason that I would be liable for injuries. Such negligence would be something like intentionally pulling someone in a parasail under a bridge or power lines. There is also that little overlooked item that if the boarder, skier, tuber thinks the driver is being reckless they can simply let go. Continuing to participate in reckless behavior implies some level of agreement and endorsing of the reckless behavior.

Regardless of the above, it was really stupid. Seems like a good 'ol boy stunt, "hey watch this".

you can sue for anything you want and if your lawyer is good you will win. You nailed the nail on the head when you said negligence, hence the driver was negligent.

[chpthril]

Hmm, such was not the case when I used to take people parasailing in Texas. I specifically inquired about liability insurance when parasailing. I was informed that parasailing, water skiing, tubing, were all considered at risk activities. The person participating would know of the risk and assumed some level of the risk. Bottom line is that I was told that I did not need any additional liability insurance for parasailing.

Negligence was the only reason that I would be liable for injuries. Such negligence would be something like intentionally pulling someone in a parasail under a bridge or power lines. There is also that little overlooked item that if the boarder, skier, tuber thinks the driver is being reckless they can simply let go. Continuing to participate in reckless behavior implies some level of agreement and endorsing of the reckless behavior.

Regardless of the above, it was really stupid. Seems like a good 'ol boy stunt, "hey watch this".

you can sue for anything you want and if your lawyer is good you will win. You nailed the nail on the head when you said negligence, hence the driver was negligent.

For these reasons, we carry a sizable PUP that goes above and beyond my boat and homeowners liability limits. It's a great thing, and cheap, and highly recommend one for anyone with PWC's boats, bikes, 4 wheelers, etc.