# Sportfish Sinks at NANSEN SPAR March 2004



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

This is my first post on the 2 cool web site. By the way *this is a cool site*.

Two years ago today I lost my 42' Ocean Sportfish at Nansen Spar.

No one got hurt and all made it back to land safely.

There have been some good post on this topic in the past you might look up.

This is the first time I've posted anywhere on this topic.

Today I've had a flood memories as you might expect and thought I might

break my silance and for what its worth say a few things about I've learned.

You never know who your fishing buddies really are untill there is a law suit

filed and " your the boat owner ".

*FIRST*: There is a term you need to learn " *PERILS OF THE SEA* "

and consider making a doctument that points out the obvious that is

" SPORTFISHING is a Sport done in water and there are Perils associated

with all Water Sports which unfortunately include bodiley injury and

sometimes and death. I accept the risk *LETS GO FISHING___________"*

This can save you alot af sleepless nighs.

*SECOND*: Safety Equipment should be looked at like *SEX*!

When you need it *YOU WANT IT NOW!!! *

You need to *KNOW WHERE IT IS!!*

So you can *GRAB IT REAL FAST IN THE DARK!!*

And *GET IT OUT!! *

*GET IT UP!!*

And *GET IT ON!!*

Or *GET ON IT!!*

You want the *BEST YOU CAN GET!!*

And you want it to *LAST A LONG TIME!!*

You want it to *CLEAN UP EASILY!!*

And you want it to *STOW AWAY NEATLY!!*

*SAFETY FIRST: *This term sounds redundant untill your boat sinks 100 miles

offshore at 2:30 AM and than it takes on a larger meaning !

It becomes *A WAY OF LIFE. *

I think it's *A WAY TO LIVE.*

*MB*


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

I believe your boat was the one that got tangled in the mooring rope attached to the mooring bouy at Nansen. I have heard many rumors of what in fact happened, It would be interesting to hear what exactly happened from you. We fish the spars pretty often and are very aware of the mooring rope when navigating around the spar, especialy at night, mainly due to what happened to your boat.


----------



## Kosta (May 22, 2004)

I am glad to see this post because no matter how much boating experience we all think we have, accidents can always happen, there are just too many variables. For those that have been rescued it can be a humbling experience. My father and I have spent many hours on the ocean and some crossings. He sent me this quote which kind of sums it up for me:

Nobody knows the perils of the ocean without facing it's fury and ferocity. And none know it better than the men and women whose lives are lived upon it's waters.

In society at large, when faced with adversity, many seek to escape the tempest in any way possible, sacrificing their own integrity and people around them to save themselves.

On the ocean there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. By the very nature of an ocean's vastness and solitude, a person's character is inevitably exposed in the knowledge that when faced with disaster, your shipmates depend on you as you do on them. Even so, in the end, an ocean is a lonely place to die&#8230;.

OCHV 1999

Be good to everyone on the water and help when someone needs it.


----------



## paddler (May 21, 2004)

Thanks for sharing. I am sure it is not easy to post about that day, but hopefully your openness will help prevent future accidents.

Mark


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

Thank you for sharing what you know. The wisdom that you share could potentially save lives in the future.


----------



## bluewateraggie01 (Feb 21, 2005)

Good to know, very helpful information. How far do those mooring ropes actually extend??


----------



## elkhunter49 (Jun 7, 2004)

Thank's for sharing this with all of us. It was a blessing that you
and your crew survived. I'm sure you miss your boat but you came
away with what matters most. Later Baker


----------



## mcgolfer (May 21, 2004)

thank you for your very informative post and for it to be your first one. thanks for posting and welcome to the site. you are a lurker no more..lol. what happened to you could have happened to any of us. your accident has made it a lot safer for those of us that fish the spars. i didn't have the bouys marked on my gps and when i drifted at night i was always looking for them as i fished. since your accident i have marked them on my gps and i am aware of where they are and what direction the mooring line is laying.

i have outboards so the issue that caused you to sink would not apply to my boat however it could cause me to lose my lower units and i would be at the mercy of the seas with no power.

your addition of the release form is probably the thing i need to do as i do take a lot of people on my boat that i have met off the internet and would sure hate to lose all that i have worked for too someone that decided to sue me over an accident or a bad experience offshore.

now to the important things. did the insurance replace your boat? is this issue behind you and are you ready to go fishing? i am always looking for company when i run to the spars. we could use your boat as the mother ship and i could tie up and sleep in a nice bunk and take a hot shower while offshore...lol......rick


----------



## Bret (May 21, 2004)

Welcome MB, this is a nice place here.. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. We are all aware of the mooring buoys now..


----------



## Argo (May 21, 2004)

I am sure most of us all remember that happening. Most dont know what really happened other than hearsay. I too am glad you guys made it out safe. I would love to hear the story of it though if you think you might want to post that up. I bet everyone would love to hear it. What happend during the incident, what happend right after, how did it all go, who rescued you guys, how long in the water...... blah blah blah. Its all good for a learning experience at least we can know what to do when in the water 100 miles out that gets the attention of someone and gets you out of the water.


----------



## Crossroads (May 21, 2004)

I would like to thank you for posting the comments concerning the release form. I have always wondered about taking new acquaintances fishing in the deep blue. There is never a guarrantee that a boat will return after leaving the jetties.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

It's to bad that a fishing buddy would sue his buddy. Man that blows, I always understood that what ever happens at sea, it's a team effort good or bad. But anyway that was a good thread and a lesson to learn for me. You can't be 2 safe anything can happen.


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

MB, glad you took the time to lay it on the line on your unfortunate anniversary. And, it's good to see that you have retained your sense of humor; the sex analogy was hilarious.

As awkward as it might be to have your "buddies" sign a release, I can see where it would serve several purposes. The obvious being a legal aid if things did go south, but it would also keep safety in the forefront of everyone's minds, especially the captain, before the trip even begins. Most folks are reluctant to ask about the location of stuff on board, if they even think about it, and whipping out the form would be a good part of the trip preflight routine.

Sorry about losing the 40 footer (insert envy for actually owning a 40 footer here), but having you post up your experience may save a lot of people similar grief. Thanks.


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Also chech your insurance, they have a distance from shore limmit on them unless it's unlimmitted. Man this realy gets you thinking. Can some one post the release that works the best?


----------



## 2KSOTY (Jun 6, 2005)

MB,

I'm friends with one of your buddies that was on the boat that day, Tex. First, I'm glad you all made it back home safe. Secondly, ever time he tells the story about the events of that evening a fishermen learns something new by the mistakes that were made and the the things that were done right. 

I hope you decide to share the story with all on the board.


----------



## tpool (Aug 21, 2005)

Thanks for sharing your story. That kind of information is invaluable.... On the release thing - If anyone's "buddies" had a problem with signing the form, then you don't need them on the boat anyways...Like Instigator said, it brings safety to the forefront of the trip, and stays on everyone's mind during the outing. We used to hold a safety meeting before each shift started each day on the rig...Serves the same purpose - get everybody's mind on safety BEFORE an issue comes along.....Thanks again for the lesson MB.


----------



## Marlintini (Apr 7, 2005)

tpool said:


> Thanks for sharing your story. That kind of information is invaluable.... On the release thing - If anyone's "buddies" had a problem with signing the form, then you don't need them on the boat anyways...Like Instigator said, it brings safety to the forefront of the trip, and stays on everyone's mind during the outing. We used to hold a safety meeting before each shift started each day on the rig...Serves the same purpose - get everybody's mind on safety BEFORE an issue comes along.....Thanks again for the lesson MB.


i agree with tpool. MB, thanks for taking the time to share your experience with us. i hope you continue to share your knowledge with us here - mark.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

I am really sorry you lost your boat, fishing is dangerous, period.

As for your "friends", I have to ask, what would possess you to sue your buddy on a "not for hire trip" ?
A paying charter is different.

Think about it, any time you interact with other people, there is an assumed risk.
Throw in water, darkness, possibly alcohol and it increases, if you can't handle it, stay home.

Don't know the specifics of why you are being sued, but this will be well worth the read, i'm sure.


----------



## Wedge (Apr 29, 2005)

I could not even imagine someone filing a law suit on you for something like this.....I bet they would vote for Hillary too. Send me a p.m. if you need to fill a void on the boat. I have limited offshore tackle but I can hold my own. You have learned from the hand of experience. I am sure that will add an immeasurable amount of caution to your game.....and you have the experience of a survivor. I have found that my best offshore experiences came from the old salts that knew the game vs. the puss gut yahoos that go offshore to party.The party is at the dock....fishing is serious business. May the supreme architect guide you through your mental needs.....I know this was a harrowing experience.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

Thank God posts like this happen every once in a while, as unfortunate as it was, to "shock" us all back into thinking about safety. I was the Safety Officer in my Navy Fighter Squadron during Viet Nam, and therefore I have always been completely "anal" about safety, especially on my boat. Every time I board, even with people who have gone with me before, we do a little "safety equipment check." Where are the life jackets, where is the "overboard bag" with all the flares, portable gps, portable vhf, etc.; where is the sat phone, and so forth. Just ask Mcgolfer and Shark. I cannot echo enough how important it is to be able to "get it quick."

Don't know if anyone saw Tred Barta's episode on "emergency at sea," but that was a real eye opener regarding being prepared. 

Pilots in my squadron would go to the bathroom, open the stall door, sit down on the throne, close the door, and on the back of the stall door was a note from me that said, "STOP WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING- YOU'RE AT 200 FT ABOVE THE WATER ON A CARRIER APPROACH AT NIGHT, AND YOU JUST LOST BOTH HYDRAULIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO??? YOU HAVE 1 1/2 SECONDS TO RESPOND OR YOU'RE DEAD!!!!

Reading this post has put at the top of the list for me for this week- end to go through all of my safety gear, make sure the flares are up to date, make sure something hasn't gotten buried beneath tuna gear, etc. A normal spring ritual anyway, but if I don't do it, it won't get done.

Also I would be very interested in any "boiler plate" disclaimer forms anyone is using. Again on of those things we don't need until we need it ( like insurance ), and then it's too late. We've all read stories, and some have experienced, things like a kingfish rocketing into the air boatside and biting someone's jugular in the process. Bites from kings, spanish mack's, sharks; finned by cobia, getting hooks buried, getting tail slapped in the boat by a green cobia or large dorado. **** it's dangerous out there!!!


----------



## Slightly Dangerous (May 21, 2004)

A good way to handle that yahoo is just tell us who he is. He will instantly become the albatross-killer on the Texas Gulf Coast.

People like that should be fed to the sharks...along with the lwayers they hire.


----------



## Mike in Woodlands (May 21, 2004)

Thanks for posting MB and welcome. I also would like to hear the story from you, and would like to see some good "boiler plate". I generally have a "boat tour" including safety gear and boat operation (in case something happens to me). Have a friend who almost drowned in lake Conroe when he was overboard, and no one in the boat (wife and daughters) knew how to start the motor!


----------



## Kalamity (Sep 3, 2005)

MB,

Thanks for sharing, with all of us, such an experience. It helps all of us re-focus on boating risk reduction, regardless of the specifics of the incident and regardless of our individual boating safety commitment "Level".

Your message is a good thing.

Thanks,
Kalamity


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Thanks for the post and welcome to the board. I completely agree with you on keeping safety items handy. There are too many people that have their safety items stowed in some bad places. I keep my pfds overhead in a t-top bag. The rest of my safety items, including EPIRB, handheld VHF, GPS as well as other mandatory items are in my ditch bag that lies at my feet at the helm. Preparation for the worst is always a good plan.


----------



## The TroubleHook (Mar 14, 2005)

*Wow!*

People never fail to amaze me...especially when money or a lawsuit are involved. Personally I think anyone that would sue a fishing buddy is a chicken$hit period. Ok maybe if there was some bodily injury I could understand but in this case I smell greed. Did one of them break a nail or what. I can't stand people like that. I do have a question...are any of those so called buddies members on this board.

Trouble


----------



## kinja (May 21, 2004)

Easy guys, MB never said his fishing buddy(s) was doing the suing. Let MB explain if he chooses. It might be the case, but I bet its quite interesting and possibly far reaching regardless. With pending litigation, I doubt he will or for that matter should bring more. -Tom


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

Fishing buddy or not when it gets bad often times people don't make it back, and when that happens your fishing buddies family will be sueing.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Jumping to conclusions:

dlove, you are right. We don't know the details right now of the lawsuit or anything else. Preparation offshore is a matter of life and death. You go that far offshore, you should be worried before you leave the dock. If you're not, then you are not paying enough attention to safety. That ocean is big, wide and dangerous. 

As far as the lawsuit goes, again, we don't know details. I doubt MB will talk with a pending lawsuit out there. If MB wants to post the case and style of the lawsuit, we can find out the details. That is public information. Lets all remember, often times suits like this are not as personal as you might think. They end up being battles with insurance companies and you can make whatever statement about insurance company expenses and lawsuits and premiums you want but the reality is insurance companies are making PLENTY of money and the cost of litigation is a bump on the log compaired simply to the cost of claims, which as we know, insurance companies are not in the business of paying, they are in the business of collecting premiums.

All that is simply a way of saying, lets not jump to conclusions and lets see what the facts are.... things may stink, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. We simply don't know at this stage what this is all about.


----------



## Aces Full (Aug 10, 2005)

MB - Glad you and your crew made it out OK and look forward to hearing more from you in the future. Welcome to the board, & I vote your post as the most inspirational and overall best I've read yet. We all love to hear how, what, when & where to catch fish, but it's getting evryone back OK that really counts. No matter what went wrong, everyone made it back OK and that's what counts in the end.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Welcome aboard.


----------



## agulhas (Jul 27, 2004)

Pg 1: about accident, safety, saving lives
pg 2: about curiosity and search for info
pg 3: about wanting to kill somebody

oh how i love fishing forums in the winter.


----------



## Crabby-D (Jun 15, 2004)

MB welcome aboard. As stated, we can all learn from your experience.

oh how i love fishing forums in the winter.Winter? Bluebonnets are out, smells like spring to me.


----------



## Tall Steve (Jun 22, 2004)

You never know who your fishing buddies really are untill there is a law suit 

filed and " your the boat owner ".

I too, find this quote interesting, maybe it is the rig who is sueing and not the fisherman, maybe someone other than MB was at the wheel when it happened.

Sorry if I am out of line here, I am not trying to pry, if MB doesn't want to share this detail that is his right.


----------



## lock-n-load (Apr 20, 2005)

MB,
Sorry about any kind of lawsuit, these things typically work themselves out. I am really interested to know how the accident happened. This way a lot of us could learn from your misfortune.

Lock-n-Load


----------



## newman (May 21, 2004)

MB Welcome Aboard!!! WOW I'm sure it is difficult to talk about this and respect the fact you are even able to openly discuss this with "strangers" on the innernet. Also I believe you have been lurking for a while to feel comfortable enough to post about the horrible memoryyou suffered.

I hope you have been offshore fishing since and will be willing to serve as crew or allow some of us to crew for you. I think your waver is reasonable and would not have an issue signing one to be a crew member on someone's boat to go fishing and have some fun!

One of these days if you are allowed to release the details of the tragedy PLEASE DO!!! However, if you are willing to give suggestions on safety awareness I'm sure many will take note...and with a grain of salt! 

Don't let your first post be your last!


----------



## Savage Rods (Apr 27, 2005)

Welcome abord MB. As a former boat owner, I understand everything you are saying. As for your buddy, well.....thats a different story. What has this world come to that everyone is sue happy? Was your "buddy" the one that suggested the trip? Want to go? That blows.


Don


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

To everyone I'm humbled by the response!

It's going to be sometime before I can offer the details of what happened that night

due to litigation, but in time the truth will see the light.

Thanks for your suport.

The only thing I'll say about court is *" It's like the Twilight Zone you never know *

*whats going to happen "*

As for the rope the last time I went to the *SPARS* was two years ago. At that time

the rope was about 300' feet +.

Maybe there is a poster who has been there in the past year and could comment

on the current conditions out there!!

As for insurance: the claim was paid in full after a site investagation.

I really like the that 1 1/2 seconds to respond story " The Jammer " told.

This is a perfect way to reveal the differance between *learned instinct*

*and contemplation* . There is no room for debate when things go south.

You have to act.

As to the question " Are any other survivers of this event members of this board? "

I don't think so but, the fishing world is a small world and they may show up.

Everyday, Everything is a gift from God. If by refocusing a fue I save one

life than God sparing me two years ago does have value.

MB


----------



## newman (May 21, 2004)

MB said:


> Everyday, Everything is a gift from God. If by refocusing a fue I save one
> 
> life than God sparing me two years ago does have value.
> 
> MB


AMEN BROTHER! But don't forget to share His word too


----------



## TOM WEBER (Aug 14, 2005)

Along the lines of the release form...1. It probably doesn't protect you if someone's family claims you were "negligent"..as we all know the claim is all that matters when someone is filing,you may have been the best at preparing, just like medicine...consent forms don't keep you from being sued. 2. It ruins why we fish...to get away from the **** of society and everyday life. I fish offshore for the solitude,as do most who post on this board. I have thought about this often and it affects who I invite to fish. I know the wives of all the guys I fish with. I also realize that this will not protect me if something horrible happens and someone chooses to come after me, or my estate. I am amazed however that a suit was filed when no lives were lost. I am not sure how a trial attorney would attach a monetary value to getting the **** scared out of you. If everyone survives it becomes one of life's valuable lessons. I've had several of these in 35 years of boating , hopefully none of which will be repeated.TW


----------



## fonz (Aug 18, 2004)

Welcome to the board.

I would not even think twice about signing a waiver.

Every time we make it back to the boat dock I thank god that we made it back safely.

Just like my good fishing buddy Alan Carter told me,
"We cheated death one more time"


----------



## Bird (May 10, 2005)

Weber's right about the waiver. A waiver isn't a 'shield' from litigation, it does however help to show 'due diligence' on the part of the owner which can help the defense side.

Weber, I drove by the boat tonight to give it a quick check and its fine but could use a rinse...a blue water rinse that is.


----------



## passed out (Oct 8, 2004)

*safety*

MB, many thanks for your posts. I have only overnited at the spars once but hope and plan more trips. Your info and the inferences therin should cause me to be more aware of safety on all my trips. Thanks again, good luck, and its obvious nobody has to tell you to stay humble.


----------



## Tall Steve (Jun 22, 2004)

THE JAMMER said:


> "STOP WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING- YOU'RE AT 200 FT ABOVE THE WATER ON A CARRIER APPROACH AT NIGHT, AND YOU JUST LOST BOTH HYDRAULIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO??? YOU HAVE 1 1/2 SECONDS TO RESPOND OR YOU'RE DEAD!!!!


Sorry for the hijack but, does anyone else hate hearing/reading questions then not getting the answers?

Since you only have 1.5 sec. to respond I am guessing the answer is short. Is it pull the eject handle?

Sorry, I guess I am just weird like that.


----------



## Aces Full (Aug 10, 2005)

1. - Save the ship from the impact of a 18,000 lb plane
2. - Save yourself

As a pilot (non military), I am alomst positive it can be done in that time frame. The point of the statement was that in certain instances offshore, you may be faced with the same timeframe, so you better have you stuff ready to go...


----------



## disgusted (Feb 16, 2005)

I had a "friend" that helped me move an aquarium one time. He dropped it on his foot. He wanted to sue my home owners insurance. It did not even break any bones or bleed. After I explained to him the only way he could sue was if I really gave him something for a lawsuit, he thought better of it.


----------



## dlove (Aug 26, 2004)

When people can sue McD's for making their ***** thick as a show steers. Anything can be expected.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Spoke to an atty friend about waivers a few years ago. They're good. In most litigated cases there's an "assignment of liability". If a person acknowledges certain risks in advance in writing, like rattlesnakes, livestock, holes in the ground, etc., it becomes the head guy's, or leader's, job to basically exercize reasonable care to see that those things (and others) don't cause problems. A higher level of care may be required for someone who is being the "leader" for payment. 

Conversely, without a waiver, a tourist from Kansas might claim to be totally unaware of the dangers of the ocean, gaffs, teeth, etc. 

You can (and probably will) always be sued if someone is seriously injured. But their written acknowledgement of the risk involved will be taken seriously when the award is made, assuming the "leader/boat owner" was not proven to be negligent.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

Tall Steve said:


> Sorry for the hijack but, does anyone else hate hearing/reading questions then not getting the answers?
> 
> Since you only have 1.5 sec. to respond I am guessing the answer is short. Is it pull the eject handle?
> 
> Sorry, I guess I am just weird like that.


Tall Steve,

I think OffshoreAggie's post right after yours actually answered your question (timing can certainly be critical), but if you really must know (not the purpose of my post), but in that circumstance, you could pull a handle called the RAT - Ram Air Turbine, which would deploy an air driven turbine out into the windstream, which would immediately power up an emergency hydraulic flight control system, which would allow you to control the aircraft and bring it safely aboard the carrier.

Now aren't you glad you asked that question???


----------



## DeepBlueGulf (Jan 18, 2005)

I'm not sure, but I think Dolphin Docks now requires a signed waiver to fish on their boats. They had the misfortune to lose a partyboat several years ago while out on a trip. To their credit the captain got everyone off safely, and other boats in the area were quick to help rescue everyone. I don't think anyone suffered any serious injuries, but I'm sure it was a scary afternoon for them. 

Tom - DBG


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

I would encourage anyone interested in this topic (waivers, whatnot) to consult with a maritime attorney on what works and what does not work, and the various limitations on the different approaches. 

Maritime law is just a different animal. 

I consulted one a few years back, and it was well worth my money.


----------



## DCW (Aug 3, 2005)

Welcome MB. Sorry to here about your accident and am glad everyone made it back ok. Your post seems to have woke up a bunch of offshore fishermen, but it applies to boats wether in a freshwater lake, river, the bays or offshore. I always ask about locations of safety equip. when I get onboard a boat for the first time. It really applies to everything in the outdoors hunting, fishing or just camping out. Where is the first aid kit, lifejackets etc.? Great post thanks!


----------



## TOM WEBER (Aug 14, 2005)

I agree. Thanks for the post TW


----------



## Sea Aggie (Jul 18, 2005)

Here's an item I put in my "ditch bag", flagging tape.










I carry a roll for everyone on the boat. It floats & all you have to do is tie the end to your body and it will float out, creating a very visible means of spotting you from the air.


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

DeepBlueGulf said:


> I'm not sure, but I think Dolphin Docks now requires a signed waiver to fish on their boats. They had the misfortune to lose a partyboat several years ago while out on a trip. To their credit the captain got everyone off safely, and other boats in the area were quick to help rescue everyone. I don't think anyone suffered any serious injuries, but I'm sure it was a scary afternoon for them.
> 
> Tom - DBG


I'll bet that was an exciting day!


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Sea Aggie - great idea. Where can I get some of that?


----------



## bumaruski (Aug 30, 2004)

I like the tape idea too. I think I will add some surveyors tape, the same thing I use hunting, to my bag.


----------



## fish'nchipper (Feb 8, 2006)

I am an attorney, and I will say that the release form is a good idea. It is not a total shield from liability, but it will help. A good attorney would be able to find a crack in any waiver (it happens every day), but it would certainly make prevailing on a lawsuit difficult. 

I personally have never had anyone sign a waiver on our boat in South FL, but the offshore fishing here involves really long runs, dealing with fog, submerged junk in the water, and all the other dangers of fishing. It is easy to say that you cannot believe your buddy would sue you, and I would love to think that way. I have to hope that my friends would never think way, but the attorney in me has a counter point to offer. Just think if you are fishing and your wife and two kids are at home. Something happens out there and you die, but the boat owner lives and has insurance. That wife who just lost her husband and potential breadwinner might be looking for help, and a lawsuit might be her only option. That does not sound like what is happening with MB, but before you go bashing people for filing a lawsuit, there are times when it might be the only option. If the case is all emotional distress, B.S. then I am sorry. If you can't tell, I am a defense attorney.

MB, thanks for your post. Next time I go out, whether it is a charter or on a friend's boat, I will be making sure I know where everything is. Good luck with your lawsuit. I don't know if the suit was just filed or it has been ongoing for a while, but I know some excellent maritime attorneys in the area if you need help. Thanks again for your great post.


----------



## Sea Aggie (Jul 18, 2005)

The surveyor's tape you can find at any hardware store. I bought a dozen or so rolls at Ace Hardware. They are about 2 bucks a roll and last pretty much for ever.

One further note, it's just as easy to stick a roll of tape in your pocket and hand one to every person on the boat at the beginning of a trip. It's a lot easier than trying to grab the ditch bag & pass them out when things get rough.


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

*Safety Really First???!!??*

You have many good points in your post, and it is a shame that you lost your boat,, but,,, having worked for Kerr-McGee, and having worked on Boomvang/Nansen, and several other Kerr-McGee Rigs in the Gulf, I feel obligated to let everyone know that ALCOHOL had a big part in this sinking of your boat, and not only that,, but I believe it was YOU who sued Kerr-McGee First,,, because they did not have a light on the Mouring buoy,, which the mileage in International Waters where the Boomvang/Nansen Rigs are located, they are NOT required by law to have a light on the buoy,, but you won the lawsuit anyway.. I have not been involved in this in any way,, but have talked with several people on site of the incident, and if your not familiar with your surroundings, it's a good idea to keep a sober captain........
It is a good thing that nobody lost their life, and probably a lucky thing, but if your "fishing buddy" is sueing you,, then maybe you ought to take some of that KM $$$ that you won in the Ridiculous lawsuit, and pay him with that. My 2 cents.. Tight Lines to all, and don't make Safety something you talk Smack about on the water,, but something that you live by!!!!
Phish ><>


----------



## TexasDux (May 21, 2004)

phishman said:


> You have many good points in your post, and it is a shame that you lost your boat,, but,,, having worked for Kerr-McGee, and having worked on Boomvang/Nansen, and several other Kerr-McGee Rigs in the Gulf, I feel obligated to let everyone know that ALCOHOL had a big part in this sinking of your boat, and not only that,, but I believe it was YOU who sued Kerr-McGee First,,, because they did not have a light on the Mouring buoy,, which the mileage in International Waters where the Boomvang/Nansen Rigs are located, they are NOT required by law to have a light on the buoy,, but you won the lawsuit anyway.. I have not been involved in this in any way,, but have talked with several people on site of the incident, and if your not familiar with your surroundings, it's a good idea to keep a sober captain........
> It is a good thing that nobody lost their life, and probably a lucky thing, but if your "fishing buddy" is sueing you,, then maybe you ought to take some of that KM $$$ that you won in the Ridiculous lawsuit, and pay him with that. My 2 cents.. Tight Lines to all, and don't make Safety something you talk Smack about on the water,, but something that you live by!!!!
> Phish ><>


So you know for a fact the Capt was drunk?


----------



## Argo (May 21, 2004)

Pat P said:


> So you know for a fact the Capt was drunk?


pass it my way.


----------



## ReefDonkey (Jul 1, 2004)

What would the crew be suing the captain over?


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

No, I do not, nor did I state that I did. But I know several people who were "on-crew" that night, and they have all said "Alcohol played a Major part in it."
The only point I was making was that MB made it sound all, "Woe is Me" and this is after he collected Thousands of dollars from suing himself. This is what I have heard from reliable sources, and as I said in my last post, it's just my 2 cents.
Phish ><>


----------



## kdubya (Jun 27, 2005)

.


----------



## Argo (May 21, 2004)

I guess it wasnt too big of a role if he won the suit. 

My guess on the crew suits is they want some money.


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

*Suit*



Argo said:


> I guess it wasnt too big of a role if he won the suit.
> 
> My guess on the crew suits is they want some money.


Maybe so,, but in a day where lawsuits are WAYYYY out of control, you can get sued and lose everything for shooting a robber in your Own house while he's robbing you, and putting your family in danger..
Always take the head shot in this situation..
Phish ><>


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

*True*



phishman said:


> Maybe so,, but in a day where lawsuits are WAYYYY out of control, you can get sued and lose everything for shooting a robber in your Own house while he's robbing you, and putting your family in danger..
> Always take the head shot in this situation..
> Phish ><>


You betcha


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

***** Straight!!*



BEER4BAIT said:


> You betcha


Attaboy B4B!!! Love your title pic!! 
Phish ><>


----------



## kinja (May 21, 2004)

phishman said:


> You have many good points in your post, and it is a shame that you lost your boat,, but,,, having worked for Kerr-McGee, and having worked on Boomvang/Nansen, and several other Kerr-McGee Rigs in the Gulf, I feel obligated to let everyone know that ALCOHOL had a big part in this sinking of your boat, and not only that,, but I believe it was YOU who sued Kerr-McGee First,,, because they did not have a light on the Mouring buoy,, which the mileage in International Waters where the Boomvang/Nansen Rigs are located, they are NOT required by law to have a light on the buoy,, but you won the lawsuit anyway.. I have not been involved in this in any way,, but have talked with several people on site of the incident, and if your not familiar with your surroundings, it's a good idea to keep a sober captain........
> It is a good thing that nobody lost their life, and probably a lucky thing, but if your "fishing buddy" is sueing you,, then maybe you ought to take some of that KM $$$ that you won in the Ridiculous lawsuit, and pay him with that. My 2 cents.. Tight Lines to all, and don't make Safety something you talk Smack about on the water,, but something that you live by!!!!
> Phish ><>


I'm not one to armchair attorney things, but libel is not a good thing to have to defend. The internet is definetly fair game regarding publishing.


----------



## bevo/fishing/hunting (May 10, 2005)

I'd be careful about this.. unless it has been proven in a court of law that alcohol was indeed involved your treading on thin ice. Trust me, I work in the media and we have been threatned and sued many times for making statements like the one above.


----------



## yakfisher (Jul 23, 2005)

Wow this got ugly in a hurry


----------



## Troutslurp (Dec 19, 2004)

*Saftey First*

Sure Did!!!


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

bevo/fishing/hunting said:


> I'd be careful about this.. unless it has been proven in a court of law that alcohol was indeed involved your treading on thin ice. Trust me, I work in the media and we have been threatned and sued many times for making statements like the one above.


yeah, but due to freedom of speech, anyone can say anything about anybody unless they threaten their physical well being.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

True, anyone can say anything they want about another person, but that doesn't mean they aren't accountable for what they say.


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

*Accountability*



irbjd said:


> True, anyone can say anything they want about another person, but that doesn't mean they aren't accountable for what they say.


 Nowhere in my statement did I say these were facts, I was merely stating the take that I had heard about a situtation. Safety On the water is my only concern,,, right in front of putt'n big Pescado in the box.
Phish


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

My response was more to what Shanker stated.


----------



## ChickFilet (May 20, 2004)

Phishman, you are making some serious accusations. If you can't stand behind them, you should not have posted them.



phishman said:


> Nowhere in my statement did I say these were facts, I was merely stating the take that I had heard about a situtation. Safety On the water is my only concern,,, right in front of putt'n big Pescado in the box.
> Phish


----------



## kinja (May 21, 2004)

phisman, unless you are involved personally in the situation, meaning you were there or have read a blood test, heard expert testimony under oath, etc.., you sir are out of line. I suggest you back away from this quickly and stop spouting stuff you heard from someone who may or may not have intimate knowledge of the situation.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

phishman said:


> Nowhere in my statement did I say these were facts, I was merely stating the take that I had heard about a situtation. Safety On the water is my only concern,,, right in front of putt'n big Pescado in the box.
> Phish


Help me out here. In one post you say that you have many reliable sources that say that alcohol played a big part in this incident, but when you are called on it, you say that nowhere in your statement did you say that these are facts. These two statements you made seem to contradict each other don't ya think?


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

kinja said:


> phisman, unless you are involved personally in the situation, meaning you were there or have read a blood test, heard expert testimony under oath, etc.., you sir are out of line. I suggest you back away from this quickly and stop spouting stuff you heard from someone who may or may not have intimate knowledge of the situation.


best advice yet.

BUT

in defence, everything that he has said is heresay, which is nothing that can/will hold up in court and also. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, but unless what someone says directly threatens the physical well being of an individual or the livelyhood of a person/individual, it is not slander.

personally, I think what was said was to be in bad taste. This thread needs a big fat lock on it.


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

Look, I DID hear it from Reliable sources, I believe it's true, and was merely trying to make a point about safe boating. If you want to promote frivolous B**S*&% Lawsuits, then you go ahead and get in the drive-thru, and spill some coffee on your lap, and give it a try too. You believe whatever ya want. I Stand behind everything I say, and wouldn't have brought it up to waste time if I DIDN't Believe it. So Do Whatever Makes Ya Happy.

Have a lovely day
Phish ><>


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

phishman said:


> Maybe so,, but in a day where lawsuits are WAYYYY out of control, you can get sued and lose everything for shooting a robber in your Own house while he's robbing you, and putting your family in danger..
> Always take the head shot in this situation..
> Phish ><>


Phish, you know not of what you speak. I'm in the business and I know about lawsuit. You are simply puking up the same junk that all the anti-lawyer, anti-lawsuit, big business interest groups are pushing as propoganda to get their agenda passed. Trust me, I know. I've been involved in tort reform legislation and I know of WHAT I SPEAK. I'm not agreeing with this guys posts and you may be right but I can tell you I ask you to site me one case where what you claim happened actually happened. I can promise you that you most likely can't. Lawsuits are not WAY out of control... anti-lawyer, anti-lawsuit interest groups are who is WAY out of control and if you don't think so, go do some research and see what kind of rights they were trying to take away from average citizens in the last Texas legislative session. It would scare you. Thank goodness that to at least "some degree" the rest of the legislature was able to tame things down a bunch.

These are things of which I KNOW!!!


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

phishman said:


> Look, I DID hear it from Reliable sources, I believe it's true, and was merely trying to make a point about safe boating. If you want to promote frivolous B**S*&% Lawsuits, then you go ahead and get in the drive-thru, and spill some coffee on your lap, and give it a try too. You believe whatever ya want. I Stand behind everything I say, and wouldn't have brought it up to waste time if I DIDN't Believe it. So Do Whatever Makes Ya Happy.
> 
> Have a lovely day
> Phish ><>


Yea, the McDonald's suit is the poster child for anti-lawsuit junk but you don't know the whole story behind that case. Why don't you go research it and educate yourself. The truth is McDonald's had lots of claims. Despite these claims, they continued to dictate to their franchises how hot to make coffee. The made a conscious decision that regardless of the risk of burns, because the burns were not usually very severe and would never amount to more than a couple thousand dollars a case, they were not going to change their temps. They had had hundreds and maybe thousands of burn claims. The jury knew of every one and decided to send McDonald's a message. So they did with a big punitive judgment award... but guess what, the state where this was rendered had a cap on punitive damages, as does Texas, and punitives were capped at no more than three times actuals. So, this person got nothing of what was reported but guess what happened after all the bad press for McDonald's... they lowered the temp. of their coffee. Sorry to say it took that case to make it happen but that is the way our system works and if it weren't for lawsuits, big business would run amuck... you can thank seatbelts, safe airbags, kill switches on jetskis and bass boats and most of all, flame retardant kids PJs on lawyers. Every one of those requirements came out of a lawsuit. If you doubt it... look it up.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

*Coffee Case Facts*

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

From: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

And still more:

McDonalds coffee and the Liebeck lawsuit
Lis Riba, 2000
Here are some facts about what really happened:

At the trial, it was revealed:

McDonalds required their coffee kept at 185 degrees Fahrenheit, plus or minus 5 degrees, significantly higher than other establishments. [Coffee is usually served at 135 to 140 degrees] 
An expert testified that 180 degree liquids will cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds. 
McDonalds knew before this accident that burn hazards exist with any foods served above 140 degrees. 
McDonalds knew that its coffee would burn drinkers at the temperature they served it. 
McDonalds research showed that customers consumed coffee immediately while driving. 
McDonalds knew of over 700 people burned by its coffee, including many third-degree burns similar to Ms. Liebeck's. 
McDonalds had received previous requests from consumers and safety organizations to lower their coffee temperature. 
There were many things McDonalds could've done to prevent injuries:

lowering the holding temperature of their coffee, 
putting warning labels on the cups not to drink immediately, 
redesigning the cups to minimize tipping or prevent drinking in cars
McDonalds knew of the risk and knew scores of injured customers, but did nothing to mitigate the chance of injury.

Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes.

Even the trial court judge called McDonalds' conduct willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

On to the situation at hand:

Stella Liebeck, age 79, was a passenger in the car. 
The car was at a full stop so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. [She was not the driver and the car was not moving.] 
The cup tipped and spilled over her lap. 
Within a few seconds, Ms. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin. 
Ms. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days, and required skin grafting and debridement treatments. 
Parts of Ms. Liebeck's body were permanently scarred. 
Ms. Liebeck tried to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds offered her $800. She sought mediation, but McDonald's refused. 
The jury initially awarded Ms. Liebeck the equivalent of two days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds as punitive damages. 
The trial judge reduced the verdict to something under $600,000. 
McDonalds has since lowered the temperature on their coffee.

Still think it was frivilous????


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The lawsuit made the basis of this thread - not the McD's stuff - is known as Cause No. 4:05-cv-04156, styled American Mod. Home Ins. v. Kerr McGee, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Just from the style, sounds like it was the insurance company suing not the boat owner. But I'll look it up.


----------



## mcgolfer (May 21, 2004)

what the #### i get bashed every night by lettermen and leno and now mcdonalds is getting bashed on the 2cool bluewater board. i sure wish the winds would stop blowing and this board could get back to talking about fishing instead of other topics.....rick


----------



## shanker (Jan 15, 2006)

phishman said:


> Look, I DID hear it from Reliable sources, I believe it's true, and was merely trying to make a point about safe boating. If you want to promote frivolous B**S*&% Lawsuits, then you go ahead and get in the drive-thru, and spill some coffee on your lap, and give it a try too. You believe whatever ya want. I Stand behind everything I say, and wouldn't have brought it up to waste time if I DIDN't Believe it. So Do Whatever Makes Ya Happy.
> 
> Have a lovely day
> Phish ><>


you are missing the point, unless you were there as a first hand witness, everything is heresay


----------



## kinja (May 21, 2004)

Of course it was Scott. The insured(MB) had no say so whether to sue to recover part of the indemnification in this case. I wasn't going to bring that up but Ernest is awful sly. Phish has no credibility in this matter. Friggin internet arguments taking up part of our day. You know, we are all stupid geeks even worrying about this mess and not making money.

McGolfer, you think you get bashed? I think the order from most to least is #1- Attorney's, #2 Insurance people and way down the list is billionare franchise owners. I didn't even know they had TV in Antlers.-Tom


----------



## ChickFilet (May 20, 2004)

Phishman, I am interested to know if you still work for Kerr-McGee. If so, I am suprised that you would come to a public internet board and discuss pending litigation. Can you clear that up? Do you work for the company?



phishman said:


> You have many good points in your post, and it is a shame that you lost your boat,, but,,, having worked for Kerr-McGee, and having worked on Boomvang/Nansen, and several other Kerr-McGee Rigs in the Gulf, I feel obligated to let everyone know that ALCOHOL had a big part in this sinking of your boat, and not only that,, but I believe it was YOU who sued Kerr-McGee First,,, because they did not have a light on the Mouring buoy,, which the mileage in International Waters where the Boomvang/Nansen Rigs are located, they are NOT required by law to have a light on the buoy,, but you won the lawsuit anyway.. I have not been involved in this in any way,, but have talked with several people on site of the incident, and if your not familiar with your surroundings, it's a good idea to keep a sober captain........
> It is a good thing that nobody lost their life, and probably a lucky thing, but if your "fishing buddy" is sueing you,, then maybe you ought to take some of that KM $$$ that you won in the Ridiculous lawsuit, and pay him with that. My 2 cents.. Tight Lines to all, and don't make Safety something you talk Smack about on the water,, but something that you live by!!!!
> Phish ><>


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

There is no prohibition against discussing pending litigation unless there is a gag order in place. Most people just don't do it because it is generally not a good idea to have a bunch of stories floating around.


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

*fishn'chick*

No, I am no longer employed with them, but if I was, I would certainly speak my mind anyway, as we are free to speak whatever we like, and I was not threatening anyone, and didn't really want to **** anyone off, but I see you have nothing better to do than repost on this same thread. Mexican fish must not be biting,,, or are you Really a Fishin'chick??
Do you live in Mexico?? Do you have your proper passport?? I don't know why you would if you didn't, but thanks anyway. 
Phish><>


----------



## ChickFilet (May 20, 2004)

*Well, that is a suprise to me Phishman*

as your email address you registered on this site with is a Kerr McGee address. Perhaps you should rethink your answer.



phishman said:


> No, I am no longer employed with them, but if I was, I would certainly speak my mind anyway, as we are free to speak whatever we like, and I was not threatening anyone, and didn't really want to **** anyone off, but I see you have nothing better to do than repost on this same thread. Mexican fish must not be biting,,, or are you Really a Fishin'chick??
> Do you live in Mexico?? Do you have your proper passport?? I don't know why you would if you didn't, but thanks anyway.
> Phish><>


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

*Federal Court Filings*

Here are what the pleadings in the case say - for those of you who are interested. Again, these are pleadings, not determined facts:

1. Per the Insurance Companies' original petition - "..the Vessel was cruising in the vicinity of Defendant's Nansen Spar oil rig (Nansen Rig) and unkowingly [hit] its unlit private navigation aid buoy located in the Gulf of Mexico. The [V]essel was at an approximate distance of 1,500 feet from the Nansen [R]ig..... Despite the fact the Defendants' private aid (buoy) to navigation was approximately 1,500 feet off its rig, the buoy was unlit an[d] affixed to the Nansen [R]ig by an unmarked and floating Kevlar line... Without any warning, at least one of the vessel's propellers was caught by the unmarked floating Kevlar line.. which caused the propeller and its shaft to be ripped out of the Vessel allowing sea water to rush in at a rate which overwhelmed the Vessel's bilge pumps... Defendants' employees who investigated the loss... found the Vessel's propeller and shaft still attached and hanging onto the unmarked floating Kevlar line mentioned above..."

2. the suit is for a stated amount of $124,978 dollars as brought by the insurance companies for what was apparently paid out in the claim.

3. the owners of the vessel have intervened and sued for the difference in the replacement cost (alleged as $625,000.00 and the claim paid i.e. $125,000.00, plus a few other incidentals) The owners claim they were 600 feet from the rig.

4. Kerr admits the mooring buoy was unlit and admits it was connected to the rig by line... Kerr denies pretty much everything else and asserts the Vessel was being operated in an unsafe manner.

5. Looks like the passengers on the vessel are intervening in the case. One of whom claims he had "a very serious surgical procedure" to repair "massive internal injuries". Their claims against the owner of the vessel are more in terms of 'this is what Kerr alleges happened"... i.e. its a vague allegation based on "information and belief" rather than direct assertion of negligence against the boat owners. In other words, they make the allegation because that's what Kerr states happened and probably because if the owner is found at fault, there may be some other liability insurance which may cover things like hospital bills etc. The rest of the passengers are suing for unspecified personal injuries and lost property that has not been reimbursed by any insurance.

Okay guys, thats just what I got from looking at the pleadings real quick. I got other things to do but thought yall might be interested in hearing what has been alleged.

Slightly different than what I had understood or heard. Which is usually the case.


----------



## phishman (Mar 9, 2006)

*Consultant*



FishinChick said:


> as your email address you registered on this site with is a Kerr McGee address. Perhaps you should rethink your answer.


I do consultant work with KM, as fishing takes most of my time nowadays,and the KM litigation is through with this case, and it is now between the boat owner and his "fishing buddy" .. Golly,, you are quite *****y....
Phish><>


----------



## ChickFilet (May 20, 2004)

Naaa, just doing my job here and calling you out for an obvious flame. You are busted.



phishman said:


> I do consultant work with KM, as fishing takes most of my time nowadays,and the KM litigation is through with this case, and it is now between the boat owner and his "fishing buddy" .. Golly,, you are quite *****y....
> Phish><>


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

phishman said:


> I do consultant work with KM, as fishing takes most of my time nowadays,and the KM litigation is through with this case, and it is now between the boat owner and his "fishing buddy" .. *Golly,, you are quite *****y....*
> Phish><>


...and also a moderator of this site.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

*KM out of the case???*

Actually, I'd be surprised by that. There is certainly nothing in the Court documents to indicate that fact but there still could be a settlement reached. I assume then KM settled with the intervenors as well because they just filed their intervention at the end of February or early March. Sure didn't take long for KM to get that resolved if that is true. Just surprises me. Justice usually isn't that quick when that large of an amount is alleged. You might check your facts Phish... again.


----------



## Argo (May 21, 2004)

guess he didnt realize the dept of the talent that frequents this board.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> found the Vessel's propeller and shaft still attached and hanging onto the unmarked floating Kevlar line mentioned above


hmmm, that doesn't exactly make me want to run out and buy one of those boats anytime soon.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

phishman said:


> Nowhere in my statement did I say these were facts, I was merely stating the take that I had heard about a situtation. Safety On the water is my only concern,,, right in front of putt'n big Pescado in the box.
> Phish


phishman,
Why don't you slither back under that pile.


----------



## newman (May 21, 2004)

Hey phishman this is a "G Rated" forum that my kids look at and I don't appreciate your language. Find a clean substitute if you find you must act more immaturely than my 14, 11, and 7 year old children and call people, you don't know or have a relationship of some kind with, names. 

Why don't you try Booger Head or Goober Face. Also this might be a good time to not post any more "Beliefs" on the occurance at Nancen...JMHO  Thank You.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

IMHO - I'm not going to judge anybody because I wasn't there... but does this strike anybody as very strange. The boat was (at the closest - as alleged) two football fields away from the rig. The buoy line was as far as five football fields off the rig. That is more than a quarter mile. If my math is right... sorry, that seems a little "unusual" to me as a rig operator who knows fishing boats frequent the rig at night on a regular basis. I had heard this guy ran too close to a mooring can. The story sounds very different to me. A rope hanging more than a quarter mile off the rig. That's not right!!! I'd like to hear why Kerr thinks that is "okay"...


----------



## word-doctor (Sep 20, 2005)

*Reminds me of the good ol' days...*



FishinChick said:


> Naaa, just doing my job here... You are busted.


FC, that was priceless. Good gumshoeing! And I think you quoted Pete Malloy/Jim Reed and/or McCloud (RIP)...

Drew


----------



## newman (May 21, 2004)

Scott said:


> IMHO - I'm not going to judge anybody because I wasn't there... but does this strike anybody as very strange. The boat was (at the closest - as alleged) two football fields away from the rig. The buoy line was as far as five football fields off the rig. That is more than a quarter mile. If my math is right... sorry, that seems a little "unusual" to me as a rig operator who knows fishing boats frequent the rig at night on a regular basis. I had heard this guy ran too close to a mooring can. The story sounds very different to me. A rope hanging more than a quarter mile off the rig. That's not right!!! I'd like to hear why Kerr thinks that is "okay"...


Yes that strikes me as strange. I'm sure we would all like to hear why it is OK to alledgedly allow a quarter of a mile of rope to float at the surface at night in an area where boats are known to operate in the hours of darkness.


----------



## Tall Steve (Jun 22, 2004)

Scott, you are obviously well versed in the law and I am not about to have a dual of legalese with you. But as a lay person the McDonalds case seems just like common sense.

Had employees repeatedly spilled coffee on consumers that is one thing but if you spill it on yourself how is the seller liable.

That is like a gun manufacturer being sued because you shoot yourself. I believe people in this world just want to get “paid”. They generally do not care about the punitive effects on a company they just want to get “paid” period. Unfortunately awful things occur in this world, and too often when these things happen people think, well this is my time to get back at “the man”.

The worst part in my opinion is that is most cases the only ones that make money are the lawyers. The plaintiffs lawyers make money the defendants attorneys make money but both the plaintiff and defendant lose money.


----------



## paddler (May 21, 2004)

Scott said:


> IMHO - I'm not going to judge anybody because I wasn't there... but does this strike anybody as very strange. The boat was (at the closest - as alleged) two football fields away from the rig. The buoy line was as far as five football fields off the rig. That is more than a quarter mile. If my math is right... sorry, that seems a little "unusual" to me as a rig operator who knows fishing boats frequent the rig at night on a regular basis. I had heard this guy ran too close to a mooring can. The story sounds very different to me. A rope hanging more than a quarter mile off the rig. That's not right!!! I'd like to hear why Kerr thinks that is "okay"...


 I would guess they are talking about the rope that hangs off the mooring buoy that is located about a quarter mile from the rig. Last time I was there the rope floats away from the mooring buoy and is not attached to the rig. In other words there is not a quarter mile of line in the water hanging off of the rig, just some hanging off the buoy, and if memory serves me correctly there is less than 100 yards of it in the water.

Mark


----------



## BIG Flat Skiff (May 25, 2004)

I'm going to have to sue somebody because I have stayed late at work reading this post and now my wife is mad at me. This is going to cause me anxiety all the way home and I will probably not have dinner waiting for me or sleep very good tonight. Thanks -
THANKS A LOT!
BFS


----------



## TheGoose (Jan 22, 2006)

As a layperson you should recognize that if you happen to spill coffee on you you should not suffer 3rd degree burns requiring multiple surgeries, hospitaliztion, etc. At worst you should experience some discomfort. Lay people did, in fact, find McDonalds liable when they were presented with all the facts, despite the fact that they had their own high priced lawyers.



Tall Steve said:


> Scott, you are obviously well versed in the law and I am not about to have a dual of legalese with you. But as a lay person the McDonalds case seems just like common sense.
> 
> Had employees repeatedly spilled coffee on consumers that is one thing but if you spill it on yourself how is the seller liable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

paddler said:


> I would guess they are talking about the rope that hangs off the mooring buoy that is located about a quarter mile from the rig. Last time I was there the rope floats away from the mooring buoy and is not attached to the rig. In other words there is not a quarter mile of line in the water hanging off of the rig, just some hanging off the buoy, and if memory serves me correctly there is less than 100 yards of it in the water.
> 
> Mark


I know Mark, that's what I originally thought. But Kerr admitted it was "attached" to the rig. I couldn't believe it. Its in the pleadings.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Tall Steve said:


> Scott, you are obviously well versed in the law and I am not about to have a dual of legalese with you. But as a lay person the McDonalds case seems just like common sense.
> 
> Had employees repeatedly spilled coffee on consumers that is one thing but if you spill it on yourself how is the seller liable.
> 
> ...


Actually, that is a misunderstanding of how the system works. No, the lawyers don't make "all the money" and the plaintiff loses money. Far from it.

In the McDonald's case, the Big Mac had a chance to settle. It was not their lawyers that made that decision. The Company did. I can promise you the lawyers told them the case had some risk and they could lose. The corporate big wigs chose to lose the money by making a bad decision. Again, everybody wants to blame the lawyers but if you are not in the system, you simply don't know how it all works. I suggest if you want to learn about the way the sytem really works. Go do some research and don't just believe the propoganda that is promulgated by folks that have an ulterior motive. Lawyers are easy to hate but lets remember that almost all of the founding fathers of this country were lawyers and they set up the greatest country in the world. Is our system perfect... no, but it is the BEST in the world. If you doubt it, go travel the world and find out.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

*Line was connected to Nansen*

The pleading by Kerr admits it was "connected" to the rig.

I couldn't believe it either when I read it.


----------



## Badhabit (May 20, 2004)

phishman said:


> I do consultant work with KM, as fishing takes most of my time nowadays,and the KM litigation is through with this case, and it is now between the boat owner and his "fishing buddy" .. Golly,, you are quite *****y....
> Phish><>


Get used to it......lmao

She's a mother, a wife, and prolly stressed 24/7, but she's still an expert at calling out BS.... She will call you down in a heartbeat, so ya gonna do somptin, or just stand there and bleed..... Go ahead, skin it, skin that smokewagon and see what happens....."SMACK, SMACK again", I didn't think so, here Milt, here's a keepsake, keep it over the bar..... :rotfl:


----------



## newman (May 21, 2004)

Badhabit said:


> so ya gonna do somptin, or just stand there and bleed..... Go ahead, skin it, skin that smokewagon and see what happens....."SMACK, SMACK again", I didn't think so, here Milt, here's a keepsake, keep it over the bar..... :rotfl:


That would be Wyatt Earp in Toomstone! Followed by "So does 10% of the house take sound about right Milt?"


----------



## LazyJeff (Jan 20, 2006)

*Wish we had a time machine*



Scott said:


> Lawyers are easy to hate but lets remember that almost all of the founding fathers of this country were lawyers and they set up the greatest country in the world. Is our system perfect... no, but it is the BEST in the world. If you doubt it, go travel the world and find out.


To go back and see if this is what the founding fathers had in mind. Don't get me wrong, the USA is by far the best, and I have traveled extensively abroad, and lived away for over two years. A lawyer is great - he can be a good friend, neighbor and even a dinner guest. But lawyers, together, in a group......OOOOOooooooooo it gives me the wilys just thinking about how quickly they can circle up around a perfectly good law add in a hint of doubt, 2 cups from an ancient precedent, leverage 2 policy makers and a highly placed official, Shake them all up with 1 liter of single malt and walk out of the room with a new way to look at that law that has a meaning completely contrary to the original. 187 hours billed (blended rate) over the weekend 

So in Good ole East Texas speak 

1 Lawyer = good - hunt and fish with him 

2 or more lawyers bad - leave them at the dock, unless you have the jack and really want the opportunity to crush your enemies.


----------



## Tall Steve (Jun 22, 2004)

TheGoose said:


> Lay people did, in fact, find McDonalds liable when they were presented with all the facts, despite the fact that they had their own high priced lawyers.


What does that prove? Lay people also found OJ Simpson not guilty.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

*Truthfully a 2 cool board*

I logged on tonight and found the case number and case posted which at first

was like hearing the high water alarm going off, but after reading along came

to this conclusion:

*There will always be people in the world trying to get over on others by*

*telling half truths or point blank lies. GOOD PEOPLE will search for*

*the truth and bring it to the light.*

It looks like you'll did that today.

Remember *MB* one-o-one about court: *" It's like the Twilight Zone you *

*never know **whats going to happen "*

We proved that here!! I never thought I'd see the cace # posted !!!

I was not going to post any more on this and thought this thread had

died. Oups!! I was wrong.

My purpose in my first post was clear and the truth, and by the way ( I

announced it to be my first post ) . I never meant to cause an online trial.

I can only hope you'll consider the waver and safety ideals and if you get

wavers signed *leave them* *on land.*

As for litagation details It looks like there are assets here to keep you

informed with the truth.

*BE SMART!*

*BE SAFE!!*

*LETS GO FISHING!!!*

*MB*


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

By the way: This comming weakend will be a calm weakend.

*BE SMART!*

*BE SAFE!!*

*LETS GO FISHING!!!*

*MB*


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2006)

i'm glad you all safely made it home ,sorry about the other stuff,some atty.'s look for things and convince normally reasonably people that there is nothing wrong and that only the insurer will have to pay.anyway i still wnat to exprience off shore fishing again , but now i'll read up and be prepared .thanks for the heads up on what could happen.


----------



## Slightly Dangerous (May 21, 2004)

Having worked as an engineer over 20 years on offshore rigs of all types I can tell you that nothing I've heard so far about KM was untoward. They are not compelled or required to light a mooring can or any mooring rope attached to it. Those cans must have a long tether due to sea conditions. Fishermen have been going to those deep rigs for years (all over the world) and I've not heard of this type of incident before except for crew boats or tenders getting their props fouled. If you run around the ocean in the dark you can expect to hit something sooner or later. Bad luck for the boat owner but I see no fault beyond his own.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Tall Steve said:


> What does that prove? Lay people also found OJ Simpson not guilty.


And you sat through the trial and saw every piece of evidence presented did you??? Criminal cases deal with the government proving their case. And in that case, the government failed. That's all. Don't second guess the jury unless you sat through the trial yourself. You might be amazed at what you would have done if YOU had been a juror in the hot seat.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

budana said:


> i'm glad you all safely made it home ,sorry about the other stuff,some atty.'s look for things and convince normally reasonably people that there is nothing wrong and that only the insurer will have to pay.anyway i still wnat to exprience off shore fishing again , but now i'll read up and be prepared .thanks for the heads up on what could happen.


"normally reasonably people" -- yea, it's all the lawyers fault. Budana, I'm sick of people blaming lawyers for everything. One day, God forbid, you ever get hurt because of somebody else's negligence... you'll change your tune. Let me remind you of the man in (I think it was) Ill. who pushed and pushed for tort refrom in medical malpractice cases. He got the legislation through. Then a few years later, he was paralyzed during a medical proceedure due to the negligence of a doctor. Now, he's the biggest advocate for getting the laws he passed repealed because he realized that he will not have enough money to compensate him and his family because of the statute. But for the grace of God...... you can sit there and say, lawyers convince normal people to do unreasonable things and that's a bunch of poo... the person most likely didn't walk into the lawyers office unless they intended to sue... I have NEVER "convinced" a client to sue anybody for anything. They make that decision. Stop bashing lawyers... its unfair and its uninformed.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Team Sponge said:


> Having worked as an engineer over 20 years on offshore rigs of all types I can tell you that nothing I've heard so far about KM was untoward. They are not compelled or required to light a mooring can or any mooring rope attached to it. Those cans must have a long tether due to sea conditions. Fishermen have been going to those deep rigs for years (all over the world) and I've not heard of this type of incident before except for crew boats or tenders getting their props fouled. If you run around the ocean in the dark you can expect to hit something sooner or later. Bad luck for the boat owner but I see no fault beyond his own.


A rope over a quarter mile long is okay??? That may be the practice but that doesn't mean its safe. There have been a lot of practices in the oil and gas industry that are no longer followed because they aren't safe anymore. If this is a widespread problem with ropes hanging off drilling rigs a quarter mile... then it's news to me and I've been to a lot of offshore platforms and NEVER seen a quarter mile long rope floating off one. I want to know what "sea conditions" warrant a quarter mile rope???


----------



## Dutch Treat (May 21, 2004)

Scott said:


> And you sat through the trial and saw every piece of evidence presented did you??? Criminal cases deal with the government proving their case. And in that case, the government failed. That's all. Don't second guess the jury unless you sat through the trial yourself. You might be amazed at what you would have done if YOU had been a juror in the hot seat.


This is very true. I served on a jury on a DWI /accident case a while back. This woman was so guilty she may as well have had it tattooed on her forehead, but, the Fort Bend Police Departments involved screwed up the evidence.

We were sick to have to turn her loose, but there was no other choice. The foul-up was an honest mistake but it still broke the chain of evidence. Stuff does happen.

Bob


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The buoy was attached to the rig by a line (under water connection on both ends), and there was a separate floating line (mooring line) tied off to the buoy?


----------



## Slightly Dangerous (May 21, 2004)

When a rig is drilling in the deep ocean environment the safety of the rig and crew is paramount...not the safety of some guy who drives a mosquito boat around the rig at night. They can place mooring gear anywhere they need to as long as it keeps a supply vessel or tender at a great distance from the rig itself. You say you have been on deep-water equipment so you should know that.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

keep this on topic please


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Team Sponge said:


> When a rig is drilling in the deep ocean environment the safety of the rig and crew is paramount...not the safety of some guy who drives a mosquito boat around the rig at night. They can place mooring gear anywhere they need to as long as it keeps a supply vessel or tender at a great distance from the rig itself. You say you have been on deep-water equipment so you should know that.


I'd hardly call a 41 foot Ocean a mosquito boat. Hardly. Actually, drilling rig companies are under a duty not to create a hazard to reasonable navigation. They are placed in "public" waterways. Don't tell me there is no duty there because there is. And I don't understand why it is there had to be a quarter mile long line when there was no work boat there. Still don't get it. I'd bet the buoy line isn't that long today... what do you bet?? If you had it your way, a hundred boats could sink and it would be okay with you and the boaters fault. Sorry.. that doesn't fly with me.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

speckle-catcher said:


> keep this on topic please


I think this thread needs to just end - period. Not sure anymore what the topic really was....


----------



## ReefDonkey (Jul 1, 2004)

Ernest said:


> The buoy was attached to the rig by a line (under water connection on both ends), and there was a separate floating line (mooring line) tied off to the buoy?


Makes sense to me....hard to believe a mooring can would be anchored in 3000' of water.

So

Was the boat in question disabled by the mooring line? or maybe the line connecting the buoy to the Spar?


----------



## Argo (May 21, 2004)

something about the safety issues with buying a fish sandwich at mcdonalds


----------



## James Howell (May 21, 2004)

Lock this sucker down, before the Mickey D's owner or the thin-skinned tarpon chasing lawyer blow a gasket.


----------



## JOKERSWILD (May 21, 2004)

It makes me start thinking if this will cause the rig owners to reassest the bounderies around rigs. I think we touched base on this when it happend but I hope they don't put them off limits to fishermen.
joker


----------



## WilliamH (May 21, 2004)

This should have been locked after post #1 . . .



James Howell said:


> Lock this sucker down, before the Mickey D's owner or the thin-skinned tarpon chasing lawyer blow a gasket.


----------



## gostomskij (Jan 14, 2005)

James Howell said:


> Lock this sucker down, before the Mickey D's owner or the thin-skinned tarpon chasing lawyer blow a gasket.


No Doubt!!! It is amazing how a very informative thread can go south....... I would expect this on THT, but not here.

Victor


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

James Howell said:


> Lock this sucker down, before the Mickey D's owner or the thin-skinned tarpon chasing lawyer blow a gasket.


ROGER that!!! Thanks James... made me smile. Needed that this morning.


----------

