Laws concerning Wake?

[Silver Duck]

A thread on another forum aroused my curiosity concerning the specific N.H. law(s) or rules governing liability for a boat's wake. I've just finished going through both RSA 270 (which governs supervision of navigation) and the rules on the Maring Patrol website and came up empty (other than references to negligent operation and, of course, no wake zones).

Can anybody point me to a specific law or rule governing this subject? Skip - are you out there?

Silver Duck

[Evenstar]

Ok, this is actually part of RSA 270, but it seems to be the only place that covers wake liability. Isn't this what you are looking for?

Section 270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water:
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.

Section 270-D:1 Definitions: VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

[ApS]

Ever since my third boat was swamped -- and nearly sunk -- by a cruiser many years ago, I've wondered why I've never seen any enforcement on this wake issue. (Or heard of any civil action in the courts, either).

I keep seeing smaller boats being swamped with loss of life: Even lake-appropriate powerboats can be hoisted high in the air by wakes, with "broken backs" appearing more often lately in news accounts than I can remember.

Perhaps today, with cellphones, videocams, and Webcams all over the lake, a case could be made against the perpetrator.

The issue would be simpler if there was the occasional commercial freighter on these waters, and times when the Coast Guard could be radioed-in to respond. That's not going to happen here.

[Bear Islander]

I don't know if there are any laws that refer specifically to wake.

However you can be held responsible in a civil action for damage done to private property. And you can be held criminally responsible if the damage was done deliberately or through negligence.

It doesn't make much difference if the damage is done by wake or some other method.

[jrc]

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't any property damage or personal injury cause by wake be a civil matter? As such, couldn't you seek redress in civil court? Could you prove who caused the damage to the satisfaction of the court? Can you recover enough to make it worth your time and lawyers fees? Or maybe just go to small claims.

Again I'm not a lawyer, but for the MP to get involved wouldn't the wake makers have to be commiting a crime? If they violate the 150' rule or a No Wake area it's a crime (well a violation). Unless they are intentionally making a wake to cause damage, I don't think the fact it causes damage is criminal.
BTW did I mention I'm not a lawyer.

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Ok, this is actually part of RSA 270, but it seems to be the only place that covers wake liability. Isn't this what you are looking for?

Section 270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water:
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.

Section 270-D:1 Definitions: VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

Good points from Evenstar. You show above average knowledge of the rules and where find them. It is nice to see the accurate 150 foot rule rather than the erroneous blanket statement to keep headway 150' from absolutely everything. Even though it has been discussed here on the forum in past years, there are many boaters who do not know the actual 150 foot rule RSA you quoted and the inclusions and exclusions to the 150 foot rule. Some other RSAs mention headway speed in specific No Wake Zones like in Meredith.

For those that may not know, the 6 m.p.h. headway speed limit law means land speed and not the speed at which water passes by your vessel. Relative land speed is easily and accurately measured by a GPS. Your standard onboard speedometer is not accurate especially at such slow speeds and it measures water passing the hull, not land speed.

How do you prove liability? Which wave or wake came from a specific boat and did damage? What about combined wakes from more than one boat? What happens when you go at 6 mph and make a wake? What happens when the damaging wake comes from a Marine Patrol boat going faster than headway?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

How do you prove liability? Which wave or wake came from a specific boat and did damage? What about combined wakes from more than one boat? What happens when you go at 6 mph and make a wake? What happens when the damaging wake comes from a Marine Patrol boat going faster than headway?

These are good reasons why a suit for damages involving wake may be hard to win.

But they do not change the fact that you are responsible for damage you do. The issue here is responsibility, if you damage your neighbors dock you can be held responsible. If you drop a tree on the dock, sparks from your campfire set it on fire or if the wake from you boat is the cause, the responsibility is the same. If you were negligent or did it on purpose that just makes you neighbors case better, and you can also be charged with a criminal offense as well.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Having been a victim of a swamping, I can tell you that the last thing you are able to do is catch the numbers of the offending boat. It happens so fast. After the initial shock, the first order of business is making sure your family and friends are all right. Then it’s the mad grab for all the items that escaped the boat and regaining composure. By then the perpetrators are long gone.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't any property damage or personal injury cause by wake be a civil matter? As such, couldn't you seek redress in civil court? Could you prove who caused the damage to the satisfaction of the court? Can you recover enough to make it worth your time and lawyers fees? Or maybe just go to small claims.

Again I'm not a lawyer, but for the MP to get involved wouldn't the wake makers have to be commiting a crime? If they violate the 150' rule or a No Wake area it's a crime (well a violation). Unless they are intentionally making a wake to cause damage, I don't think the fact it causes damage is criminal.
BTW did I mention I'm not a lawyer.

You applied common sense to the equation, and you actually came up with a pretty good "lawyer like" answer.

Case in point, an article in this month's Seaworthy (publication of BoatUS Marine Insurance). In a nutshell, a captain parked his 45 footer off of an island near a known shipping lane. Along came a large ship at about 15 knots, throwing a deepwater 4 foot wake. As the wake approached the shallow water the skipper was anchored in, it grew rapidly and swamped the back of his boat.

The court's ruling? The ship was not liable for the damages since the ship had a proper lookout and was travelling at a reasonable speed.

Could this apply to the wakes created by the Mount or the Sophie? Usually each year someone comments on those two vessels and the wakes they produce. I would surmise by this ruling that a reasonable conclusion would be that since these vessels travel known routes on a regular basis, that other boats must be prudent in their approaches or choices of anchorages.

Yes, the MP under limited conditions can cite offenders if they can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that criminal intent took place to cause the intended wake and its inherent damage. But given the circumstances as so well put by Joe Kerr, you can see why those statutes are rarely applied and your chances in Civil Court, while somewhat better, are slim indeed.

[Silver Duck]

Thanks, Evenstar & Skip. I was actually already familiar with RSA 270-D:2 and the 150ft "no Wake" rule, but was wondering if there was anything else.

In the past, I've had people tell me that in N.H. responsibility for one's wake is an absolute under the law in all circumstances, which, I understand is not the case in maritime law. It would appear that, beyond the requirements of 270-D:2, common sense coupled with lawful and prudent operation are the keys.

And, Joe, what exclusions were you referring to? Barring seagulls and spar bouys, the list seems pretty comprehensive to me!

Silver Duck

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

...And, Joe, what exclusions were you referring to? Barring seagulls and spar bouys, the list seems pretty comprehensive to me!

Silver Duck

From the same RSA, here are a couple:


... (b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.

The particular about skiers is very relevant to Winni, section 2 about the Piscataqua obviously does not apply here, but since I boat this area on a weekly basis thought I'd include it for fun.

Makes me think, those that lament the close calls, wakes, loud exhausts and Captain Boneheads should spend a week or two down here on the coastal waters. Guaranteed to make a white knuckle sailor out of many of 'em. Perhaps, after having cut my teeth on these waters, it explains why I am a little more tolerant when up yonder!