Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken
Skip,
I know you are the unofficial law expert for Winni.com but doesn’t this seem a little unjust?
The great Captain J.J. Hazelwood was charged and rightfuly so even thought he was not at the helm (or even on the bridge) but that was a commercial vessel. With a non-commercial vessel, liability for damage will most often fall upon the operator and the owner but shouldn’t adherence to the laws of operation be the sole responsibility of the person behind the wheel?
I don’t doubt it is the law but it seems a little silly.
|
Not unjust or silly at all, in my humble opinion.
The intent of the legislation is to only pursue this charge when it can be proven that the person at the wheel could not have possibly been able to control the vessel without command by another party.
If the person at the helm was a competent operator, regardless if a third party was acting as a captain, then this law does not apply. That is why it is so rare to see charges for pleasure boat operation under these regulations.
Commercial operation, as you cite, falls under a different subsection of the Coast Guard CFR.
In this case it appears that the intoxicated Captain clearly indicated to investigating authorities that even though his wafe was operarting he had full command of the boat. He, or she, also had to relate that she was incompetent to operate the vessel on her own. Looks like the booze, bravado or a combination of both got the best of him. In this limited circumstance I agree with the authorities charging him with BWI.
Additionally we are only talking about the actual BWI offense. Civilly the rules change, and both individuals along with whoever the boat owner my be, are liable for damages, recovery and repair. The burden of proof and responsibility are much less on that side of the Courthouse!