TowBoatUS tows sailboat into bridge

That may be the way they arrived at the bridge- but I've never heard it called the NW channel in relation to the bridge, or the NW channel at all. It's on the south side of the bridge on the east side. In addition the turn before lining up to pass under the bridge is between 7-9 feet deep for 40 feet at higher low tide and if you miss it (still inside the markers) your aground. Of course the claim is that it was high tide- so that may well be the way they came. You can see the bridge as soon as you turn out of the inlet. If I had 40 years experience (or 4 years or even 4 months for that matter) and I was towed outside the main channel towards a bridge ahead I'd ask the towing captain what the bridge clearance was ASAP. Experience keeps a dear school which perhaps the owner did not learn from previously but I'll bet he never makes that mistake again, nor does the tow captain.

Well, the bottom line remains: one didn't ask for boat's height, the other didn't ask for the bridge's clearance. I'd say, no matter how it turns out in court, those two worth each other - tough luck for the ship!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51456160/Towing-Liability-1

That pretty much says it all and that's not even considering that, in the case of the sailboat, the owner was on board to advise.. It's called precedent, which probably explains why the owner chose to try and bully a settlement. The boat's owner has no case.

Only thing different is that the sailboat owner was on the scene to interject and didn't, which only makes it worse for him. In both cases the tow operator thought it would clear and it didn't. Of course, if the sailboat owner wants to throw good money after bad I'm sure he'll find a lawyer willing to take it. I'm betting we never see this in court though. Guaranteed that if the tow operator didn't know about that case before he sure does now. In better times you might see the tow throw some nuisance money at the guy, but I doubt even that given the economy, and the above cited case. Going public is turning into a real bad idea for this boat owner. The only thing he can hope for now is to cost the tow operator money, and that too could backfire on him.

Haven't seen any, but I'm sure the CG will determine that the tow operator misjudged the bridge clearance and possibly that there were other contributing factors. It should have no bearing on the case, which should be thrown out in pre-trial motions as soon as this other case is presented.

You sure like to post stuff, NYCAP, don't you?
Either it's "let's shut speculation up and wait for the court" or "boat owner in my oh so loud opinion has no case". One or the other, not both in the same thread, OK?

Yes I do. Some write memoirs, some write books. I write here. As for moving from 'let the court decide' to 'just drop it', you may have noticed that new information became available courtesy of Capt. Bill. The case has previously been argued and precedent set. That ends it, and this thread as far as I can see.

IMO The Tow boat operator was negligant for not finding out the mast height and the bridge height before towing the sailboat into the bridge.

Then it's probably a good thing for the cap that you don't get to decide these things.

Hi,

If as the article seems to make out that Tow Operators are pillars of the earth and cannot possibly ever do anything wrong that they can be blamed or held liable for why do Tug Operators bother to carry Insurance in the first place if no one can sue you for anything you do even if it is caused by your own incompetence or stupidity.

I wonder if the same applies to Tow Trucks, I might have to look at buying one and riving that is it is the case .

BTW: Is the paper shown in the link above referring to a state ruling or a nationwide ruling?

Oh I almost forgot. "I read it on the internet so it must be right" is not something I have heard said recently but does it apply in this case?

Maybe/maybe not. Guess he'll just have to file a case to find out.

If you jump on someone's Sportfish, and run it through a bridge and knock the Tuna Tower off, wouldn't you be considered liable because you didn't first verify the height of the Tuna Tower versus the height of the bridge?

I wouldn't think it would be any different if you as a Captain hook up to someone's sailboat and drag it through a bridge (where you are the only person in control of it's movement), and knock the mast off, without finding out the height of the mast and the height of the bridge. The towboat operator is the professional here, he is licensed and should know to check for these things. The sailboat owner was paying the Tow Service to safely tow the vessel to a dock. The boat being towed could be someone with no experience.

Bridge clearence

I was proceeding to swing bridge here in the PNW, the operator was watching my approach, I hailed him on the VHF to confirm clearance, he said, no worries, you are good...took the top off my SSB antenna..$300.00....whose fault. ??? MINE...

Personally, I was surprised at the findings of the previous court. On the sailboat issue my opinion would be that the tow operator would be totally at fault if the sailboat's owner wasn't there, even though that goes against that previous ruling. What makes the big difference to me is that the sailboat's owner was right there, familiar with his air draft, and I'd assume familiar with the published height of the bridge if he was heading there. There's no excuse for him to have had only time to start a prayer. Where was he for the other 20 minutes or so that must have passed while they approached the bridge? The tow boat operator probably has very limited experience towing tall sailboats, possibly very little experience period. There's a lot of captains out there that I wouldn't let drive a dinghy. Having a license does not a professional make. Personally, I would never hire a captain that wasn't on at least his 2nd or 3rd issue. So who do you think has the most experience with issues that a sailboat with a 64' mast has to contend with, the tow captain or the boat's owner/skipper? That's why I feel both share the responsibility and liability. However, that case takes it a step further, to a place that's not good for the owner.

This is the kind of situation we in Russia describe as, pardon if my translation does not pass on the wordplay, "worthy of appealing $300 damages to one's person directly"...
(It was "to one's face" originally, in Russian "litso" is both "face" and "person". In part ofc cuz it's all you can do save for letting it go altogether)

Ah yes, we used to have those days here too. Here we'd "punch 'em in the face", and if we broke his nose we'd buy him a beer. Now that's lawsuits and felony records.