• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Boating/Jet Ski

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

hleerc51

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

We were invited on a co-worker's boat/jet ski. he was towing my daughter on a float with jet ski belonging to his son, whom also works for same company. he then made a sharp turn can caused the float to slam against his boat. as result, my daughter was knockout; face down in water motionless for a minute. everyone on board jumped in to help. my wife was freaking out; called 911, but she came to and everyone was relieved. we made it back to dock and took her to the ER. she had a concussion and made a full recovery.

months later, my health insurance denied the claim due to a clause in policy forbidding hazardous activities. medical bills are just over $10K. he didn't have boat insurance nor insurance on the jet ski. I asked my co-worker if he'd help with the costs; at first he said yes; but when I asked for 50/50 split, he claimed he didn't have any money. Months goes by and I am dealing with hours upon hours of calls with hospital and seeking outside counsel.

I filed an suit against him through Circuit Court for the maximum $30K allowed for injuries, pain and suffering. Co-worker says Assumed Responsibility will find him 100% not liable; but willing to settle rather pay attorney fees; reverting to our previous agreement of 50/50 split. I think he's taking advantage by not owning up unless forced to.

would my case stand up in court or is he right about Assumed Responsibility?


Thanks.



he has purchased boat insurance after this incident.
 


adjusterjack

Senior Member
Assumption of risk is often an issue in negligence cases and it certainly appears to apply to your case.

Depending on your daughter's age, she might not be deemed legally capable of assuming such a risk but since you (parents) were present and condoned the activity, you might be responsible for that assumption.

I suggest you not take legal advice from the enemy.

However, my lifetime experience in the insurance industry suggests that you take the 50% of the medical costs rather than roll the dice in court and possibly end up with nothing.

The other thing to consider is that getting a judgment for a higher amount doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to collect. A $30,000 judgment could convince anybody to run to a bankruptcy lawyer.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

We were invited on a co-worker's boat/jet ski. he was towing my daughter on a float with jet ski belonging to his son, whom also works for same company. he then made a sharp turn can caused the float to slam against his boat. as result, my daughter was knockout; face down in water motionless for a minute. everyone on board jumped in to help. my wife was freaking out; called 911, but she came to and everyone was relieved. we made it back to dock and took her to the ER. she had a concussion and made a full recovery.

months later, my health insurance denied the claim due to a clause in policy forbidding hazardous activities. medical bills are just over $10K. he didn't have boat insurance nor insurance on the jet ski. I asked my co-worker if he'd help with the costs; at first he said yes; but when I asked for 50/50 split, he claimed he didn't have any money. Months goes by and I am dealing with hours upon hours of calls with hospital and seeking outside counsel.

I filed an suit against him through Circuit Court for the maximum $30K allowed for injuries, pain and suffering. Co-worker says Assumed Responsibility will find him 100% not liable; but willing to settle rather pay attorney fees; reverting to our previous agreement of 50/50 split. I think he's taking advantage by not owning up unless forced to.

would my case stand up in court or is he right about Assumed Responsibility?


Thanks.



he has purchased boat insurance after this incident.
Let's start by saying this: Insurance has no bearing on liability.

I suspect that your coworker may, in fact, be right. Your daughter (through you) assumed the risk. Furthermore, I don't know how you came up with $20k in "pain and suffering" over a bump on the head with no lasting ill-effects.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
If this comes under Admiralty Jurisdiction (navigable waters), a whole other set of laws may apply.
You (may be) right in this case...but the law is the same. The OP's daughter (perhaps through her parents) voluntarily assumed the risk.

In any case, we're still stuck with the question of how the OP arrived at $30k
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
You (may be) right in this case...but the law is the same. The OP's daughter (perhaps through her parents) voluntarily assumed the risk.
The 5th Circuit plainly stated that assumption of risk does not apply in Admiralty Law, and that was the majority rule when I studied law school. But I'm sure your citation will tell us that the 4th Circuit doesn't agree.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The 5th Circuit plainly stated that assumption of risk does not apply in Admiralty Law, and that was the majority rule when I studied law school. But I'm sure your citation will tell us that the 4th Circuit doesn't agree.
Fair enough - I'll retract my previous statement.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I think assumption of risk may not be a concern regardless of anything. Op said this;


he then made a sharp turn can caused the float to slam against his boat
There may be an issue of negligent operation of the boat. The risks associated with being pulled behind a boat do not include a negligent operator driving the boat in such a manner that he caused the collision.
 

quincy

Senior Member
The 5th Circuit plainly stated that assumption of risk does not apply in Admiralty Law, and that was the majority rule when I studied law school. But I'm sure your citation will tell us that the 4th Circuit doesn't agree.
Links to two cases from the 4th Circuit follow, for your reading enjoyment.

Richards v. Blake Builders Supply Inc, 528 F.2d 745 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1975: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10937219126167976505&q=Maryland+boating+accident+liability&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21,109, 124,146

Crosson v. Vance, 484 F.2d 840 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1973: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7106627874670053911&q=Maryland+jet+ski+accident+liability&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21,109,124,146

From Richards, the Court said: "In Crosson v. Vance, 4th Circ. 484 F.2d 840, we observed that there was an impressive argument for elimination from admiralty jurisdiction of controversies involving only the operation of small pleasure craft. There we dealt with the claim of an injured water skier against the operator of the towing motorboat. We held that controversy to be not within the admiralty jurisdiction ... Now we are confronted with cases arising out of two separate incidents ... We conclude that admiralty jurisdiction is present, though we think the jurisdiction should be limited to exclude such cases as these."

The Richards case references the Supreme Court's holding in Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 US 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454.
 

hleerc51

Junior Member
Assumption of risk is often an issue in negligence cases and it certainly appears to apply to your case.

Depending on your daughter's age, she might not be deemed legally capable of assuming such a risk but since you (parents) were present and condoned the activity, you might be responsible for that assumption.

She was 10 at the time.
 

hleerc51

Junior Member
Let's start by saying this: Insurance has no bearing on liability.

I suspect that your coworker may, in fact, be right. Your daughter (through you) assumed the risk. Furthermore, I don't know how you came up with $20k in "pain and suffering" over a bump on the head with no lasting ill-effects.

the one attorney i did talk to advise to go for the maximum limit allowed.

At the time of the accident, we didn't know if she was dead or alive. her face was down; motionless. can you really put a price on that kind of mental suffering for the parents and the physical suffering on my daughter?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
the one attorney i did talk to advise to go for the maximum limit allowed.

At the time of the accident, we didn't know if she was dead or alive. her face was down; motionless. can you really put a price on that kind of mental suffering for the parents and the physical suffering on my daughter?
Pain and suffering doesn't usually apply to the instant situation but the long term effects.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
If the OP is referring to "pain and suffering", it isn't going to fly to the tune of $20k. Perhaps the OP is actually referring to "intentional infliction of emotional distress" for the parents. In this case, the essential elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress (in Maryland) don't appear to be met.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top