Wet Bus ticket?

[Terry B 71]

Obviously I don't know the circumstances. 

BUT - if skipper of powerboat that rammed the ferry was at fault (and he's being charged and pled guilty) then a $10,000 fine is an effing joke.

Discuss.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/boatie-who-sank-russell-ferry-pleads-guilty/BL2OROTANZA6PDIJORZ2ZYO5MA/

[aardvarkash10 960]

"Maximum penalties imposed by the court against an individual include a fine of up to $10,000 or a prison term of up to one year."

So it was the maximum fine possible under the law.

There would have had to have been significant aggregating factors (intention probably)  to push it into the jail time area.

I'm reasonably confident the skipper will have lost any insurance cover due to recklessness, so total cost will be into 100s of thousands.

[Terry B 71]

Hi Aard, agree he's up for heaps however that's not what the law should take into account.

Unbelievable that a man loses his boat and suffers severe health consequences and this guy who caused it gets a $10,000 fine.

Recompense for the ferry guy? Apart from insurance on the ferry? What about his costs for on going health issues, loss of income, etc, etc?

[ex Elly 197]

He was remanded at large and will be sentenced in June. The charges are laid under the collision prevention rules of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and carry a maximum penalty of 12 months’ jail or a $10,000 fine.

He hasn't been fined yet. He could get jail time.

 

 

[aardvarkash10 960]

46 minutes ago, Terry B said:

Hi Aard, agree he's up for heaps however that's not what the law should take into account.

Unbelievable that a man loses his boat and suffers severe health consequences and this guy who caused it gets a $10,000 fine.

Recompense for the ferry guy? Apart from insurance on the ferry? What about his costs for on going health issues, loss of income, etc, etc?

That's why we have ACC.

Before ACC, the victim would have to raise a civil case against the other party.  This was expensive and had no guarantee of legal success, let alone financial compensation.

[K4309 258]

2 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

 

I'm reasonably confident the skipper will have lost any insurance cover due to recklessness, so total cost will be into 100s of thousands.

 

I'd query that statement on the insurance.

Especially the public liability aspects of it.

I've never heard of car insurance being cancelled because you were at fault, so why would boat insurance be cancelled? What you might be getting at is that insurance doesn't cover criminal acts. I'd take a punt fleeing from police would get your insurance cancelled.

But what about DIC? Noting there are two levels of DIC, the one where you get an infringement notice (which I understand to not be a criminal charge) and the one where you go to Court (which I'd take is a criminal charge).

This guy is being charged under the give way rules. The marine equivalent of not looking both ways at a give-way sign. They aren't saying or indicating anything with regard to gross negligence. Like chopping a bottle of whisky and pranging the boat, 3 lines of coke or some other thing that would point to gross negligence. From stories around the time it sounds like he was just distracted. Weather was good, so not like he was doing 30 knts in thick fog, which happens regularly in Auckland.

I'd fully expect his insurance to cover the damage to his boat and the ferry.

I'd love to know if the Public Liability insurance covers anything related to this? I'm guessing his legal costs wont be covered. Perhaps and costs associated with the rescue of the ferry passengers, such as Coastguard call out fees?

But all that said, I'm a bit surprised the best charges they can muster is 'failing to give way'. It was a very serious and very nearly fatal port-starboard. Still 'just' a port-starboard though, it would appear in the eyes of the law.

[aardvarkash10 960]

17 minutes ago, K4309 said:

I'd query that statement on the insurance.

Especially the public liability aspects of it.

I've never heard of car insurance being cancelled because you were at fault, so why would boat insurance be cancelled? What you might be getting at is that insurance doesn't cover criminal acts. I'd take a punt fleeing from police would get your insurance cancelled.

But what about DIC? Noting there are two levels of DIC, the one where you get an infringement notice (which I understand to not be a criminal charge) and the one where you go to Court (which I'd take is a criminal charge).

This guy is being charged under the give way rules. The marine equivalent of not looking both ways at a give-way sign. They aren't saying or indicating anything with regard to gross negligence. Like chopping a bottle of whisky and pranging the boat, 3 lines of coke or some other thing that would point to gross negligence. From stories around the time it sounds like he was just distracted. Weather was good, so not like he was doing 30 knts in thick fog, which happens regularly in Auckland.

I'd fully expect his insurance to cover the damage to his boat and the ferry.

I'd love to know if the Public Liability insurance covers anything related to this? I'm guessing his legal costs wont be covered. Perhaps and costs associated with the rescue of the ferry passengers, such as Coastguard call out fees?

But all that said, I'm a bit surprised the best charges they can muster is 'failing to give way'. It was a very serious and very nearly fatal port-starboard. Still 'just' a port-starboard though, it would appear in the eyes of the law.

Wording from a Vero boating policy, exclusions:

"damage deliberately caused by the wrongful or reckless acts or wilful misconduct of any insured person;"

If I were an inusurer, I would claim that navigating among other craft at several times the speed limit while not at the wheel or in control of hte boat qualifies as wilful misconduct.

They may get hung on the "deliberately" bit and a lack of oxford commas.

[K4309 258]

44 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Wording from a Vero boating policy, exclusions:

"damage deliberately caused by the wrongful or reckless acts or wilful misconduct of any insured person;"

If I were an inusurer, I would claim that navigating among other craft at several times the speed limit while not at the wheel or in control of hte boat qualifies as wilful misconduct.

They may get hung on the "deliberately" bit and a lack of oxford commas.

It is good to have some contract wording. Thanks for that.

What I'm not aware of is the other points you make. Are they in the public realm? (as in, reported in the media or something?) I guess what I am asking is if they are established facts of the case (not contesting what you are saying, I'm just not aware of them).

An example I was thinking of where a guy got charged with recklessness was a fizz boat over Whitianga way, pranged into an island in the dark. He was effectively lost, but did not slow down, still going full tilt. That was deemed reckless cause he knew he was lost, had limited vis due to it being dark, and did not slow down. His passengers got fairly badly injured.

So, if there was a speed limit, he was exceeding it excessively, there were numerous other boats around, AND he wasn't at the wheel, then yeah, I'd agree with you.

I'd extend the question as well. If you aren't at the wheel, how could you say you were keeping a proper lookout? and if you weren't at the wheel while going full tilt, what the feck where you doing? I'd put an arguement that going 30 knts and not being at the wheel anywhere within the BoI is reckless, more so getting into the busier areas around Russel and Opua.

[CarpeDiem 430]

3 hours ago, Terry B said:

Hi Aard, agree he's up for heaps however that's not what the law should take into account.

Unbelievable that a man loses his boat and suffers severe health consequences and this guy who caused it gets a $10,000 fine.

Recompense for the ferry guy? Apart from insurance on the ferry? What about his costs for on going health issues, loss of income, etc, etc?

New Zealand has ACC.

While ACC is often unfair to the victim and victims often end up worse off, that's just the way it is.

Our ACC is considered world leading and is envied by the developed world.

[CarpeDiem 430]

2 hours ago, ex Elly said:

He was remanded at large and will be sentenced in June. The charges are laid under the collision prevention rules of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and carry a maximum penalty of 12 months’ jail or a $10,000 fine.

He hasn't been fined yet. He could get jail time.

It will be a steep hurdle to cross to get jail time - I would suggest he won't even see the full $10k of the fine.

If there is no precedence then it will be in the 2k - 5k range.  If there's precedence then it will depend on what those fines were and what they were for.

[CarpeDiem 430]

1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Wording from a Vero boating policy, exclusions:

"damage deliberately caused by the wrongful or reckless acts or wilful misconduct of any insured person;"

If I were an inusurer, I would claim that navigating among other craft at several times the speed limit while not at the wheel or in control of hte boat qualifies as wilful misconduct.

They may get hung on the "deliberately" bit and a lack of oxford commas.

There's nothing to suggest this was a "deliberate" act.  That's would be a very high bar to pass.

He plead guilt to dangerously operating a vessel.  That's a far cry from deliberating ramming your vessel into another.

He didn't purposefully set out to ram the ferry.  It was not a deliberate act

[Black Panther 1,587]

He's got to live with himself. 

[Frank 157]

7 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

New Zealand has ACC.

While ACC is often unfair to the victim and victims often end up worse off, that's just the way it is.

Our ACC is considered world leading and is envied by the developed world.

Its not a perfect system but I'm told by my American friends the alternatives are far worse, ie you have a very litigious society and insurance gets way more expensive.

 

[aardvarkash10 960]

9 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

There's nothing to suggest this was a "deliberate" act.  That's would be a very high bar to pass.

He plead guilt to dangerously operating a vessel.  That's a far cry from deliberating ramming your vessel into another.

He didn't purposefully set out to ram the ferry.  It was not a deliberate act

Totally.

But the requirements for conviction at law are different to the requirements set in a commercial contract.  

At worst, the insurer would use an "utmost good faith" type wording.

Any insurer would prefer not to pay if they can...

[K4309 258]

On the insurance thing, I don't think his vessel was damaged? Think it had a bent push-pit, but was afloat and looked sound. Probably chipped the gel coat. All could be fixed for the cost of the insurance excess or there abouts (at least fixed for the cost of one years insurance premium).

The ferry on the other hand was a write off, obviously. If the offenders insurance wouldn't pay, then the ferry's insurer would have to. That just becomes a legal dispute between the two insurers.

I would like to think the ferry owner gets compensated for loss of buisness / loss of income etc. As already stated we have the ACC system for injuries and loss of wages. I'm not sure how ACC covers loss of income for small businesses / tradies, my understanding is it is in-effective. Business insurance is generally required.

[aardvarkash10 960]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

On the insurance thing, I don't think his vessel was damaged? Think it had a bent push-pit, but was afloat and looked sound. Probably chipped the gel coat. All could be fixed for the cost of the insurance excess or there abouts (at least fixed for the cost of one years insurance premium).

 

Looking at the damage to the ferry, I would be very surprised if the only damage was to the pushpit.  That may have been all that was visible, but an impact like that shifts engines and drivetrain, damages structural members, displaces cabin fittings etc...

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

The ferry on the other hand was a write off, obviously. If the offenders insurance wouldn't pay, then the ferry's insurer would have to. That just becomes a legal dispute between the two insurers.

 

Insurer's generally go "knock for knock" in auto stuff, I'm not sure what process they might follow on water.  The ferry's insurer has the option to recover from the other boat owner directly if the insurer declines cover.

 

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

I would like to think the ferry owner gets compensated for loss of buisness / loss of income etc. As already stated we have the ACC system for injuries and loss of wages. I'm not sure how ACC covers loss of income for small businesses / tradies, my understanding is it is in-effective. Business insurance is generally required.

Again, an insurance issue, and a cost of business issue as you note. If the ferry owner was insured against that risk, they claim from thier insurer.  That insurer then recovers from whichever party they think they can shake money out of.

If they are not insured, they could possibly make a civil claim - costly and time consuming though.

[CarpeDiem 430]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

 I'm not sure how ACC covers loss of income for small businesses / tradies, my understanding is it is in-effective. Business insurance is generally required.

It doesn't at all. It covers 80% of your personal income up to a threshold. After that you need income protection insurance. 

A lot of self employed eg tradies, come unstuck with income under the table or using valid options to reduce there income, eg fringe benefits... 

 

[khayyam 68]

2 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

It doesn't at all. It covers 80% of your personal income up to a threshold. After that you need income protection insurance. 

A lot of self employed eg tradies, come unstuck with income under the table or using valid options to reduce there income, eg fringe benefits... 

 

My understanding is that the threshold is quite low, too. 

[CarpeDiem 430]

1 hour ago, khayyam said:

My understanding is that the threshold is quite low, too. 

This year it is $140k (ish) - so the most you get is 80% of that, which you will pay tax on - anything above that you need income protection insurance for.

I will not judge if that is "low" or "high"