NYCkayaker Danger

[Kai Mei]

Anyone who believes in merits of this lawsuit against the town is in  
favor of furthering a nanny state. Who said we don't know all the  
facts? The simple fact is Conn. didn't create the mighty sea, and  
winds. Nor (opinion here) should they restrict access to it or write  
warning labels.

Are they the manufacturer of events or responsible in any way for  
promoting the deceased's actions? If not what further facts do you  
have to offer?



Next up, mountain climber hurt falling down cliff, who will s/he sue?



On Dec 14, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Richard Clifford wrote:

> 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