$500K yacht dropped onto dock
I once asked a forklift operator at a dry storage place if he had ever
dropped a boat. He said there had been damage but never anything serious.This isn't just some kid on a big forklift... http://www.local10.com/news/9948836/detail.html |
Dan
Sep 27
2006
|
| Not quite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yacht |
Bill
Sep 30
|
| Not my words. Did you read the article? So how much do you have to
spend to have a yacht? |
Dan
Sep 29
|
| Yacht refers to a category of sailboat. CWM |
Charlie
Sep 28
|
| >Yacht refers to a category of sailboat. Yacht is from an olde dutch word that means "pleasure boat". In more recent times it is frequently used to describe a nicely
maintained pleasure boat greater than 40 feet but YMMV. |
Wayne.B
Sep 28
|
| This is kinda interesting. Out of curiosity, I've read a few cases, and it seems that if one
seeks a binding *specifically negotiated* hold harmless agreement it
must have some fairly specific language. For example, it must
specifically say that the parties have agreed to the conditions that
the bailee is not responsible for any sort of negligence. Now, I can't
imagine any bailor in their right mind signing this sort of thing...
other than some city or governmental agency which has protection via
some other route. This might make some sense if you tell me that you'll transport my
boat for $1000 or give me a deal and transport the boat for $300 if I
sign a hold harmless..... ASSUMING, of course, I can find some
insurance to cover my situation for something less than $700. Amazing what some people will sign! |
Gene
Sep 28
|
| It is all a matter of where you are in the food chain. If you want to do business with Ford I am sure there will be a written
contract with a specifically negotiated hold harmless provision attached.
However, try to get Ford to buy into one and they will tell you to kiss off.
;-) |
Sep 28
|
| My insurance company would be the ones to whom I'd go for recourse. My
deductible would be out the window. Of course, the insurance company could,
and probably would, take on the marina. But, the contract says they're not
liable.
-- ***** Hope your day is great! ***** John |
JohnH
Sep 28
|
| Hey, your contract said the same thing as mine!
-- ***** Hope your day is great! ***** John |
JohnH
Sep 28
|
| Have you read all the fine print on the back of the Breezy Point contract? I won't discuss the stupidity of the post to which you responded!
-- ***** Hope your day is great! ***** John |
JohnH
Sep 28
|
| To be fair, the marina *did* repair, at outside cost, the damage to my
fiberglass on two occasions. The damage wasn't extensive, but the repair
was perfect. They did this even though the contract said they weren't liable.
-- ***** Hope your day is great! ***** John |
JohnH
Sep 28
|
| Yes John, it is stupid to cross out ridiculous clauses in a contract before
signing it (in your case, a statement that says the marina is not
responsible for damages if they dropped your boat). Thanks for the good laugh! |
Sep 28
|
| I would guess that there are *very, very, few* *specifically
negotiated* hold harmless clauses. Indemnification can be looked at as
a sort of insurance..... it does *NOT* protect any party from gross
negligence and the well founded issues of bailment. When the boatel accepts consideration for housing the bailor's
property they are held to a pretty high standard of care. Prior
negotiation of financial responsibility is fine, but I can't image
that any court of law in any country would allow the bailee to skip
without exercising reasonable and prudent care of the bailor's
property. |
Gene
Sep 28
|
| One of the very few things I remember from Business Law 101 is that what
seems logical and to be common sense in deciding cases like this ....
usually isn't in the eyes of the law or court. Eisboch |
Eisboch
Sep 28
|
| Gene, One of the reasons the contract includes the hold harmless clause is
shown in this thread. As we have seen there are people who do accept
them as "the law", and believe it has removed the contractor from all
liability. If 50% of the people believe that to be true, and don't file
a claim, even if the contractor was negligent and their actions are not
considered reasonable and prudent, the contractor and the contractor's
insurance company come out ahead. The scary thing (as we have seen in this thread) is many individuals and
"contractors" believe their own hold harmless clause will actually
protect them from any and all responsibility. If these people do not
have adequate insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits they or
their company can suffer severe financial harm and/or bankruptcy. |
Reginald
Sep 28
|
| That logic seems irrefutable! |
Gene
Sep 28
|
| Exactly! In most cases it is merely smoke and mirrors, however, those
that *feel* like they have signed away their rights.... well, I
guess..... really have! |
Gene
Sep 28
|
| Agreed, but they do exist. And they are the best type of indemnification.
I have never read of *specifically negotiated* hold harmless agreement
thrown out in court let alone on a regular basis as one person claims. |
Sep 28
|
| What you are saying is that negligence, with respect to a reasonable
and prudent standards of care, is a simple cost of operation passed
along to the customer. That can certainly be true, but I can't help
but believe that successful lawsuits, where the bailor has prevailed,
are a sort of corporate Darwinism. |
Gene
Sep 28
|
| ....and in three of the three boatels I've used, the 'fine print' says the
marina is not responsible for dropping the boat from the fork lift. FWIW.
-- ***** Hope your day is great! ***** John |
JohnH
Sep 27
|
| You're kidding, right? They have NO responsibility? How do you present
that claim to your insurance company? |
Dan
Sep 28
|
| Dan,
The contract can say anything it wants, it does not necessarily remove
them from having liability if your boat is damaged. It is happened to
me, I would report it to my insurance company, and they would fight it
with the botel. |
Reginald
Sep 27
|
| If the contract included *specifically negotiated* hold harmless,
indemnification or other risk transfer verbiage the liability can
absolutely be transfered.over to the contractor. If not, good luck. ;-) |
JimH
Sep 27
|
| $500k isn't a "yacht" that is just a nice boat.
A yacht has a $500k boat swinging on davits. |
gfretwell
Sep 27
|
| This is the only country in the world where an unconditional hold
harmless waiver does not mean you can't find a lawyer who will sue for
you.
The scary thing is the number of times the plaintiff wins or simply
walks away with (half to 2/3ds of a) a nice settlement. The lawyers
take their piece off the top. |
gfretwell
Sep 27
|
| Which is the reason the insurance companies have so many lawyers on
retainer. The specifically negotiated hold harmless waiver is
overturned in courts all the time. |
Reginald
Sep 27
|
| They may not "win" very often when a waiver is present but if the
plaintiff promises a long and ugly trial the defendant usually
settles. Both lawyers make out fine.
The injured party gets a few bucks. |
gfretwell
Sep 27
|
| Nope. A general hold harmless perhaps. But not a specifically negotiated
one. |
Sep 28
|
| Ahh. American business...irresponsible as always. "We dropped your boat, but it isn't our fault." |
Harry
Sep 28
|
| Yup, they state the defendant was "negligent" and was not acting in a
manner that would be considered "reasonable and prudent". As far as the
injured party at the botel, as long as you have your boat insured for an
agreed upon value you will come out ok. If you do not, your insurance
company will probably come up with a value for your boat that is
substantially below what you think it was worth, or what it will cost
you to replace the boat. |
Reginald
Sep 28
|
| Serves them right if they are foolish enough to sign a contract stating the
company is not responsible for damages if they drop your boat. Anyone in
their right mind would cross out that part of the contract before they
signed it. |
Sep 28
|
| Better yet would be large signs outside and inside the marina, saying
"we're not responsible if we drop your boat." If that is their attitude, they need to be in another business. |
Harry
Sep 28
|
| The problem is not in the assignment of negligence it is recognizing and
understanding that the customer/insured is going to pay either way,
through higher insurance premiums or higher fees at the Marina/Boatel. |
Bert
Sep 28
|
