Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[Gombessa]

If i remember correctly, you were in the thick of things as well

I appreciate the goading. We are going in a circle, and bit by bit getting mired into technicalities.

I'm not arguing that the factfinder determines duty, or even that Florida has a standing assumption of risk doctrine directly on point, but I stand by the fact that given everything we have not determined about the facts AND the existing caselaw in this matter, it's simply not out of the question for a court to find a duty--either new, or more likely existing under current law; just as I'm arguing this hypothetically, at this point you're also hypothetically assuming some facts and that there's no case law that a court could determine is on point.

 

[H2Andy]

i think we've beat this horse to death four or five times by now

 

[Boatlawyer]

I appreciate the goading. We are going in a circle, and bit by bit getting mired into technicalities.

I'm not arguing that the factfinder determines duty, or even that Florida has a standing assumption of risk doctrine directly on point, but I stand by the fact that given everything we have not determined about the facts AND the existing caselaw in this matter, it's simply not out of the question for a court to find a duty--either new, or more likely existing under current law; just as I'm arguing this hypothetically, at this point you're also hypothetically assuming some facts and that there's no case law that a court could determine is on point.

We're right and Andy knows it, he's just being contentious

 

[Gombessa]

i think we've beat this horse to death four or five times by now

Agreed; I wasn't actually going to reply but for the gentle prodding above.

Now I really need to concentrate on finishing my day.

Ciao, all!

 

[Missdirected]

No one has audited the medallion donations to my knowledge, and there seems to be a groundswell of support for the whole deadship as artificial reef concept, as is pending now in the legislature, all in the name of purported reef preservation.

So, it seems there is already some lipsticking the pig going on in this area. Sinking deadships in the name of marine preservation, to save money, or worse to hawk medallions for an unaudited society, regardless of who does it, public or private, should be closely scrutinized.

Well hell's teeth I have finally caught up!

BT you saying that to your knowledge no one has audited the medallions. May I ask if you tried to find out? These are highly inflammatory statements; hence, my wondering if you did any research. One of the reasons I ask, is that there are some good companies out there that stick by selling these when other shops don't. Some may perceive those shops as caring more than the others. Yet with these statements, it would say the contrary. Perhaps, that the shops selling them are "taking some one the side".

 

[Boatlawyer]

Well hell's teeth I have finally caught up!

You state that to your knowledge no one has audited the medallions. May I ask if you tried to find out? These are highly inflammatory statements; hence, my wondering if you did any research.

well, I tried to find an annual report or accounting for the UKARC online, but haven't been able to find a mention.

The medallions are not as big a deal to me as the concern that deadships and other sea junk are being touted as marine saving artificial reefs, when it's just cheaper for the owners to get a marine society to buy into it than to dispose of the stuff.

 

[Missdirected]

well, I tried to find an annual report or accounting for the UKARC online, but haven't been able to find a mention.

The medallions are not as big a deal to me as the concern that deadships and other sea junk are being touted as marine saving artificial reefs, when it's just cheaper for the owners to get a marine society to buy into it than to dispose of the stuff.

As this has been brought up recently by a couple of people, perhaps I will find some time tomorrow and try and do a bit of research.

Night all. :moon:

 

[AXL72]

Well

I was gonna participate some more. However, I liked how Thal brought up some excellent points, and I cannot say anything better than how he said them. You got to admit his points and delivery are funny and make you say hmmmmm.

Plus I don't want torecieve a call from the Florida Bar association talking about fining me for talking about law witout being qualified

So, I am still saddened by the loss of these guys.

I will just say, "welcome to the board, boatlawyer". Hope you enjoy and continue to contribute Any postings on trial references are much appreciated and adds a new facet here on the board


PS...PM sent to Missdirected to settle down on the damn medallion issue!!!...j/k

 

[J.R.]

Wow... this IS getting good. I still put Andy in the lead... Missdirected and Gombessa tied for second... Boatlawyer sinking fast.

If a 'non-lawyer' might be permitted to make an assessment:

Heck even I would look at the citation and argue that it has no similarity to the the arugment regarding SG... as Andy pointed out... (if I may paraphrase)... the wre... STRUCTURE... was never intended to be 'user friendly' to the general public and is only accessable by individuals who are either trained to make wise judgements in its use... or trained to recognize it as the hazardous environment that it is and stay clear... in either case, it is not a hazard to the casual passer by... AND, there can not be any implicit contract to maintain something that is inherently not maintainable (OK... I added that...).

Popcorn is gone. Gonna' have to make more... ya'll keep goin', I think I'm learnin' stuff here...

;-)

 

[AXL72]

can I sneeze out the words "attractive nuisance" as just two words not associated with eachother or legal matters?