Wakeboard injury - responsibility???

[panzertanker]

When my S-I-L received her settlement she had witnesses that verified the driver had driven recklessly. The insurance company investigated and she won (it didn't go to court).

From Nevada statutes.
NRS 488.400 Operation of vessel or manipulation of water skis or surfboard recklessly or while intoxicated or under influence of controlled substance prohibited.
1. A person shall not operate any motorboat or vessel, or manipulate any water skis, surfboard or similar device in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life or property of any person.
2. A person shall not operate any motorboat or vessel, or manipulate any water skis, surfboard or similar device while intoxicated or under the influence of any controlled substance, unless in accordance with a lawfully issued prescription.
(Added to NRS by 1960, 480; A 1971, 2031; 1973, 8; 1985, 343; 1987, 1554; 1993, 2237; 1995, 1723)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 488.205)

Read below about "comparative negligence":

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legalcafe/lifestyle/risk/assumption_background.html

Nevada is a "comparative negligence" state. However, you would have to find the boat owner more than 50% at fault. Read below pertaining to Nevada:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/68th/95bills/AB520.TXT (Then go to NRS 41.141)

This link of interest can be helpful for any state that wants to know their state's boating requirements:

www.boat-ed.com

But since the OP admits that husband continued to wake board even after injury, FIL was only accused of "going too fast" NOT driving recklessly.....Comparative negligence would not appear to apply here....

 

[junebug48]

When my S-I-L received her settlement she had witnesses that verified the driver had driven recklessly. The insurance company investigated and she won (it didn't go to court).

From Nevada statutes.
NRS 488.400 Operation of vessel or manipulation of water skis or surfboard recklessly or while intoxicated or under influence of controlled substance prohibited.
1. A person shall not operate any motorboat or vessel, or manipulate any water skis, surfboard or similar device in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life or property of any person.
2. A person shall not operate any motorboat or vessel, or manipulate any water skis, surfboard or similar device while intoxicated or under the influence of any controlled substance, unless in accordance with a lawfully issued prescription.
(Added to NRS by 1960, 480; A 1971, 2031; 1973, 8; 1985, 343; 1987, 1554; 1993, 2237; 1995, 1723)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 488.205)

Read below about "comparative negligence":

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legalcafe/lifestyle/risk/assumption_background.html

Nevada is a "comparative negligence" state. However, you would have to find the boat owner more than 50% at fault. Read below pertaining to Nevada:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/68th/95bills/AB520.TXT (Then go to NRS 41.141)

This link of interest can be helpful for any state that wants to know their state's boating requirements:

www.boat-ed.com

FINALLY - some info I can use! Thanks, you are awesome!

 

[Happy Trails]

But since the OP admits that husband continued to wake board even after injury, FIL was only accused of "going too fast" NOT driving recklessly.....Comparative negligence would not appear to apply here....

She does state:

I never said he continued to wakeboard for 30 minutes, I said he didn't realize the extent of the injury (from a specific fall) until he was out of the water.

She feels strongly that the FIL shares some liability in this accident. But I did tell her she would need to prove FIL was more than 50% at fault.

I provided her with some things she can look over. It is up to them if they feel they have a strong enough case and whether or not they will pursue it.

 

[junebug48]

But since the OP admits that husband continued to wake board even after injury, FIL was only accused of "going too fast" NOT driving recklessly.....Comparative negligence would not appear to apply here....

I see your point, but I think with additional information we have obtained (that the driver was "messing" with the trim, admission of exessive speed, and he was turned around to watch the wakeboarder - not to see him fall - but physically turned himself around to watch the action, therefore not paying attention, etc.) we have more than the 50% required by law. Let me clarify that the injury was a result of a "crash" caused by excessive speed, which a beginner boarder cannot handle. When the board catches in the front, you go down without warning. Hurt knees are common with wakeboarding, and sore or sprained knees are different than torn ligaments, etc. that require surgery and 18 weeks off work. Getting back up one more time after the "crash," not knowing that the knee had any real damage (until trip to the ER), should not erase the fact that there was some negligence by the driver. Whether or not it would stand up in court, that's different. Thanks!!!

(edited for spelling - sorry)

 

[junebug48]

But since the OP admits that husband continued to wake board even after injury, FIL was only accused of "going too fast" NOT driving recklessly.....Comparative negligence would not appear to apply here....

One question - before I had stated that we had asked him to maintain a slow speed on more than one occasion. He had acknowledged not only our request, but he knew the recommended guidelines for towing a wakeboarder. Yes, we took the risk of getting behind the boat, but he agreed to tow, and we trusted him. Wouldn't that be "reckless" of him to ignore it? The only feedback about this is that we assume all liab by getting behind his boat (if we knew he wouldn't go slow). How do you know someone won't go slow? Especially your family member? Thanks.

 

[panzertanker]

The only feedback about this is that we assume all liab by getting behind his boat (if we knew he wouldn't go slow). How do you know someone won't go slow? Especially your family member? Thanks.

You know b/c he didn't "go slow" for the entire 2 days you were wake boarding.
I am afraid you are going to find out that he has less than 50% responsibility due to the fact of your husband's repeated acceptance of the risk. He KNEW the driver was going faster than he felt comfortable with, yet he continued to allow that person to drive. Barring another driver, which you seem to state FIL would not allow anyone else to drive, then the victim (your husband) should have taken reasonable precaution and exercised logical/sound judgement and not taken the ride offered.

Good luck.

 

[djohnson]

Just want to say I'm going to be sure and tell my hubby (the driver) to not go slow this weekend at the lake. I think going slow is much more damaging. It is so much harder to stay up and to have the balance required. Plus it is very hard on your arm and leg muscles as you have to do the pulling instead of the boat.

Plus we might could just sue our insurance and get something (after we have a good time and play for two days ofcourse)

 

[panzertanker]

Just want to say I'm going to be sure and tell my hubby (the driver) to not go slow this weekend at the lake. I think going slow is much more damaging. It is so much harder to stay up and to have the balance required. Plus it is very hard on your arm and leg muscles as you have to do the pulling instead of the boat.

Plus we might could just sue our insurance and get something (after we have a good time and play for two days ofcourse)

Stop it junebug, stop it....!

 

[junebug48]

You know b/c he didn't "go slow" for the entire 2 days you were wake boarding.
I am afraid you are going to find out that he has less than 50% responsibility due to the fact of your husband's repeated acceptance of the risk. He KNEW the driver was going faster than he felt comfortable with, yet he continued to allow that person to drive. Barring another driver, which you seem to state FIL would not allow anyone else to drive, then the victim (your husband) should have taken reasonable precaution and exercised logical/sound judgement and not taken the ride offered.

Good luck.

You are probably right. What is hard to swallow is that he ignored us, and now someone is hurt. It is his normal behavior, accross the board. The fact that we know this about him hurts our case. I think my husband just wants to prove a point. It may not be pursued legally, but the point will be made.

Thanks for your help.

 

[junebug48]

Just want to say I'm going to be sure and tell my hubby (the driver) to not go slow this weekend at the lake. I think going slow is much more damaging. It is so much harder to stay up and to have the balance required. Plus it is very hard on your arm and leg muscles as you have to do the pulling instead of the boat.

Plus we might could just sue our insurance and get something (after we have a good time and play for two days ofcourse)

To quote the expert:

Originally Posted by djohnson
The FACT is when someone is use to seeing this on a regular basis, they become pretty familiar with the type people they are dealing with from the statements that are made.

Enjoy your weekend at the lake, and be safe.

 

[panzertanker]

I think my husband just wants to prove a point. It may not be pursued legally, but the point will be made. Thanks for your help.

I understand.
As I originally told you, tell him he is a jerk and that you and your family (if you have kids, they should NOT be part of this) will not be speaking to him until he makes an apology.

You are welcome, good luck.