Boat Skipper fined

[ShinyShoe]

or slow down?

[the_fifer]

Originally Posted by peterthelight

I understand that shock absorbing seats will assist but, based on this case, it still might not have prevented the injury to this woman's back. The important point in this case is that we should all advise our passengers to use their legs in the first instance to shock absorb.

When I did my Level 2 P/B I was not advised by the instructor to do so. To me, mind you, it does seem to be the most natural thing to do without being told.

Also, how many times have we asked our passengers if they have any possible back issues before we take them out. My instructor asked if we had any health problems but did not especially highlight back problems.

In this litigious world we live, we could be leaving ourselves or our insurers vulnerable to claims and that is not a good road to go down.

What do you do when these questions are asked but then the injured denies it to enable a law suit?
Are we looking at signing to say a full a safety briefing has been received?
its amazing how people manage to forget when making a claim.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by the_fifer

What do you do when these questions are asked but then the injured denies it to enable a law suit?
Are we looking at signing to say a full a safety briefing has been received?
its amazing how people manage to forget when making a claim.

Been there done that ..... amazing how the truth gets told when the paramedic turns up

[willk]

Originally Posted by the_fifer

What do you do when these questions are asked but then the injured denies it to enable a law suit?
Are we looking at signing to say a full a safety briefing has been received?

In a commercial environment, signing off the brief as "completed" in the log will be a help. A preprinted checklist and safety briefing can't be very hard to do and will focus everyone's attention.

[ShinyShoe]

Something to be said for the aircraft industry on this one. A short video briefing which is shown - impossible to forget something. yes people may stop listening, but people will remember being shown a video even if they don't recall its content. Has the advantage of being able to show things like an inflated lifejacket...
In the modern world you could have that on a £70 android tablet, play it in your car on the slip way before they get close to getting wet.
I'm sure someone could devise some electronic means to document it was played too.

Something makes me thing the lighthouse guys got this wrong - if they had used some common sense they'd have realised she would sue over loss of earnings and so they could just have paid her full pay till she came back to work and then she has no loss of earnings to claim... It was £25k not exactly a fortune. They could then have got in the arguement with their contractor about the money.

[PeterM]

Alas the best briefing signed and witnessed by a judge, a virgin and the son of God himself won't stop a claim.....

It's just easy money for people who don't know what the meaning of 'accident'.....we see it all the time at work....

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by ShinyShoe

Something to be said for the aircraft industry on this one. A short video briefing which is shown - impossible to forget something. yes people may stop listening, but people will remember being shown a video even if they don't recall its content. Has the advantage of being able to show things like an inflated lifejacket...
In the modern world you could have that on a £70 android tablet, play it in your car on the slip way before they get close to getting wet.
I'm sure someone could devise some electronic means to document it was played too.

Something makes me thing the lighthouse guys got this wrong - if they had used some common sense they'd have realised she would sue over loss of earnings and so they could just have paid her full pay till she came back to work and then she has no loss of earnings to claim... It was £25k not exactly a fortune. They could then have got in the arguement with their contractor about the money.

We are in the process of talking through a vid/cd package for PCA members to play to cleints on board yachts and crusiers as they get their safety briefing. We will also add a section for RIBs, boarding between boats and the health risks attached to fast boats.

All our briefings follow a process from showing / fitting lifejackets, explain procceedure for emergencies and kit locations and then heavily focus on injuries past and present, health and they sign a form stating they have disclosed relevant info. Still has been ignored a Peter M said they only tell you when something occurs

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Alas the best briefing signed and witnessed by a judge, a virgin and the son of God himself won't stop a claim.....

Certainly wont. But some (not all) claims will nose dive as a result because the "I wasn't told about the risk, wasn't shown how to reduce the risk" arguement can't be used.

I think even in this case if she had been told of the risk and the judge accepted that she was told and told how to reduce the risk it probably wouldn't have mattered as I think the Judge felt the skipper should have slowed down to mitigate the risk, something she wasn't able to do.

[willk]

Originally Posted by ShinyShoe

Certainly wont. But some (not all) claims will nose dive as a result because the "I wasn't told about the risk, wasn't shown how to reduce the risk" arguement can't be used.

I think even in this case if she had been told of the risk and the judge accepted that she was told and told how to reduce the risk it probably wouldn't have mattered as I think the Judge felt the skipper should have slowed down to mitigate the risk, something she wasn't able to do.

Yes to all of that.

Briefings are only there to warn and inform. Once the skipper has been implicated in an injury, it's not going to help. However, if the sh1t hits the fan and it all ends in court, following procedures will work in your favour - if only to divide/reduce liability.

Putting the general public through a washing machine ride for money doesn't have a happy future, IMO.

[the_fifer]

Originally Posted by ShinyShoe

Certainly wont. But some (not all) claims will nose dive as a result because the "I wasn't told about the risk, wasn't shown how to reduce the risk" arguement can't be used.

I think even in this case if she had been told of the risk and the judge accepted that she was told and told how to reduce the risk it probably wouldn't have mattered as I think the Judge felt the skipper should have slowed down to mitigate the risk, something she wasn't able to do.

Your right but we all know what it's like driving in waves. The throttle is on and off regularly and the wave you thought you had read suddenly disappears from under you or breaks early. Speed is dictated by the conditions and the boat and even then we all fall hard sometimes.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by the_fifer

Your right but we all know what it's like driving in waves. The throttle is on and off regularly and the wave you thought you had read suddenly disappears from under you or breaks early. Speed is dictated by the conditions and the boat and even then we all fall hard sometimes.

Yep..you can be stationery and the boat still takes a battering....

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Yep..you can be stationery and the boat still takes a battering....

Yes - but if the rib guys could have proven they had addressed bracing etc in their briefing and the accident had happened when stationary then the judge wouldn't have been sat there saying he didn't believe that he was adjusting speed through the waves. Instead the judge may well have been saying 'its a known risk, the skipper did everything he could to mitigate the risk' or he may have said 'you didn't need to go out in those conditions'.

Originally Posted by the_fifer

Your right but we all know what it's like driving in waves. The throttle is on and off regularly and the wave you thought you had read suddenly disappears from under you or breaks early. Speed is dictated by the conditions and the boat and even then we all fall hard sometimes.

The skipper failed to convince the judge he was adjusting speed. Going back to the aircraft industry the question might be can someone prove they were adjusting speed through some black box stuff? I'm guessing a normal GPS trail wouldn't show it as that updates too infrequently so you'd need a record off the engine revs? (Is there a bit of kit to record NMEA2K data to say an SD Card).

Prove you drove as good as can be expected and that you warned people that even with the best driving a hard fall can happen and how to reduce the risk you might also be looking at a different outcome in court.

[Outnabout]

What you need is a marine version of the Road Hawk if such existed. (The cyclist one is waterproof). Roadhawk UK | Black Box Car Cameras - RoadHawk

It records video and audio, GPS position and speed with 'g' acceleration, on an SD card and repayable through a software interface combining all on a timeline with a map. May or may not help depending on circumstances and may not be admissible, but if you're not at fault it could help. Just need a waterproof RIB version!

P.s Some of the motoring videos are scary!

[DGR]

Originally Posted by ShinyShoe

Yes - but if the rib guys could have proven they had addressed bracing etc in their briefing...

But I don't think it was a commercial situation - was it? By all means brief people that don't know/haven't been out with you before - but have we got to the point where I have to show my mates a video before I take them out? Really?

[ShinyShoe]

The lighthouse case linked halfway through the thread was commercial. The hairdresser was not but there was no suggestion she was inadequately briefed.

[the_fifer]

Originally Posted by DGR

But I don't think it was a commercial situation - was it? By all means brief people that don't know/haven't been out with you before - but have we got to the point where I have to show my mates a video before I take them out? Really?

It depends if you mates got hurt out in the boat would they claim against you?

[the_fifer]

Originally Posted by Outnabout

What you need is a marine version of the Road Hawk if such existed. (The cyclist one is waterproof). Roadhawk UK | Black Box Car Cameras - RoadHawk

It records video and audio, GPS position and speed with 'g' acceleration, on an SD card and repayable through a software interface combining all on a timeline with a map. May or may not help depending on circumstances and may not be admissible, but if you're not at fault it could help. Just need a waterproof RIB version!

P.s Some of the motoring videos are scary!

This seems like an okay idea but for commercial use there would need to be some way of storing the data long term as claims can be made years after the event.

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by the_fifer

It depends if you mates got hurt out in the boat would they claim against you?

Thats when you find out who is or was a mate, unfortunately the claim business is massive as we have seen in vehicles and whip lash!! injury claims. There is a very strong chance if someone is hurt on board a claim could follow

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by the_fifer

This seems like an okay idea but for commercial use there would need to be some way of storing the data long term as claims can be made years after the event.

I think its a 3 year ( and 3 months for some oddity I cant recall ) limit for injury claims. 5 (?) for propety .

[DGR]

Originally Posted by the_fifer

It depends if you mates got hurt out in the boat would they claim against you?

I imagine it would be the same as if they got hurt in a car I was driving. What's the difference?