NYCkayaker Danger

[bob1may at optonline.net]

So how far is ok?Let's imagine that kite surfer gets to the beach at Whereverville to find a fence.  "No problem, I'll just drive over to Othertown and fly there" says he.On the way from Whereverville to Othertown he drives through the towns of Hill and Dale, and stops for gas.  Upon arriving at the beach at Othertown, he promptly goes out and gets himself killed.Let's sue the towns of Hill and Dale.  After all, they are between Whereverville and Othertown, and the the authorities in Hill and Dale certainly should have "known" someone someone might be traveling on their roads after finding the fence at Whereverville.  Hill and Dale should close there roads to prevent anyone traveling on them on the way to Othertown.  At the very least the police departments in Hill and Dale should stop every car to ask "Are you on the way to Othertown to do something dangerous?"And certainly BigOil should have trained the attendant at the gas station that if someone stops for gas with a kite board on the roof in the middle of winter they are probably on their way to do something dangerous.  The gas station should have refused to sell the guy gas to prevent him from getting there.  Lets sue BigOil too!It's ok, the insurance companies expect it.So, no, probably there won't be a fence built.But I bet there will be a sign, there and on many other beaches.  Those signs cost money to build, erect and maintain, and those costs will show up in taxes.And the insurance company will incur costs defending this, and they will pass those costs on to their customers - who are us. (With a double dip by way of taxes because the municipalities will pass their insurance rate increase on to the tax payers.)And the courts get tied up with this crap instead of legitimate cases.I'm not really up on the bible, but isn't there something along the lines of "Am I my brother's keeper?"Kite surfer dude is dead.  I'm sorry for his family.  But it's his own fault.  He voluntarily undertook an inherently dangerous activity.   It's not society's job to protect us from ourselves.----- Original Message -----From: Richard Clifford Date: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:01 amSubject: NYCkayaker DangerTo: nyckayaker > NYCKayaker,>    As earnest as many of you folks appear to be you should > appreciate > that we are alive and the kite surfer is the dead guy. His wife > is suing > because that sometimes is all that folks have left for choices. > Folks > here do not know, but might be influenced, were they to learn > that he > left behind 4 sniveling, hungry kids who lost their dad to his > own > stupidity. They now are confronted with crappy financial > straights and a > really bad genetic contribution from the XY side! So, why > shouldn't the > grieving widow give the "greedy" lawyer thing a try? There is a > notion > in the law, that despite everything that might tell a person > "no" that > they say "yes" anyway because the situation created is "an > attractive > nuisance." (torts) Yep, that does happen.> >    There is something to be said for the widow's lawsuit. Also, > the > community officials might have known that because of wind and/or > tidal > conditions off their beach(es) in the late Fall or Winter months > that > this type of activity, safe in Summer months, was now different > and more > dangerous and that others had been injured there. (The community > may > have been on notice of an inherently dangerous situation and > failed to > act appropriately to control or limit access to the beach.) And, > maybe > the guy couldn't read English. So, a guard being posted to the > site when > the community 'knew' that kite surfers would appear would have > been > prudent for public safety. (torts)  After all, why would any > community > post a sign warning of any possible danger? It is more than our > responsibility to use good judgment. Sometimes, some of us need > a bit of > a warning or an alert to potential danger. (Rip current signs at > the > beach??)> >    Relax, the town will not incur 'additional' legal expenses > as it > already is protected by a policy of insurance and the duty (of > the > insurance company) to defend on the claim(s).  And, insurance > companies > do not cave in to plaintiff's attorneys just because their > client has > been sued. Man, that would be sweet if that were the way it > worked. So, > there is little or no need really for any of us to get so > sanctimonious > and so, so concerned about the financial well-being of the > Connecticut > shoreline communities. Really, you ought to stop and think about > it > sometime. Or just drive up there. Also, communities are insured. > The > court system (no one has mentioned) is an adversarial system > with a > Judge riding herd over the competing sides. In the Federal Court > system > there are quite specific rules for frivolous litigation, > lawsuits and/or > conduct. Again, relax, take a breath, the Federal Court will > save > Southport's bacon. I have no fears for them, nor do I anticipate > or fear > fence being constructed any time soon. (Personally, I have been > open-water swimming until November 4 this year regardless of the > signage.)>    Now, for a bit more clarity in the discussion(s), we might > consider > moving for a broad-based, no-specific discussion of greedy, > nasty > lawyers and the court system and the abridgment of our personal > freedoms. .... For example, one cannot go off and kayak anywhere > that > may suit a person simply because the person is "free." Do that > just once > crossing the Ambrose Channel w/o permission and either you are > toast > (see what happened this Summer) or you are holding a ticket with > hefty > fines or you gain a new moniker at home, the defendant! ....> >    A better focus for discussion might be .....  let's figure > out how > the events surrounding the death impacts our kayaking > experiences. I > would encourage many to break down the discussion and exchanges > into > something closer to the simple notions of  .........personal > right(s) > ................  personal responsibility ........ duty > .......public > safety ......  personal safety ..... or a really great topic: > ANSI > standards!!!! I have plenty more signs that provide warnings > that are > similarly absurd. And, the courts are confronted, every day, > with folks > making claim(s). Essentially our legal world boils down into > contract > law (rights and responsibilities) or tort law (civil rights and > wrongs). > We can consider these two notions with or without the lawyers.> >    And, BTW Lee G. does great work both as a lawyer and as a > kayaker, > and, he still appears to be enjoying himself doing both. > Interesting > discussion. Have a great day. Kayak safely. Err on the side of > good > choices. But, now I must work! - Richard Clifford> > > *-- > > Richard C. Clifford, Esq.> Attorney at Law*> 1890 Palmer Avenue, Suite 302> Larchmont, NY 10538> > Tel: (914) 834-0100 -or- 0757> Cell: (917) 854-5824> Fax: (914) 834-0888> > RichardClifford at earthlink.net > RichardClifford at NYSBar.com> > > **********************************************************************> The NYCKayaker mailing list is hosted by www.rockandwater.net, > and is a public service offered to the kayaking community by the > Hudson River Watertrail Association. Learn more about HRWA at > www.hrwa.org> To unsubscribe or change delivery options:> http://www.rockandwater.net/mailman/listinfo/nyckayaker>