[Wristpin]

"Once the disaster was over it would have been a small matter to find the owner and compensate him...and if the boat was used in the rescue operations, the city should pay. I suspect much of the lawsuit is over the city not wanting to pay"

I remember reading that the NO Police Department owned three boats but two weren't running when the storm hit.


Seems to me that this type of commandeering should be legal during declared emergencies. It is legal to loot necessary supplies from stores during such situations. Why not a life saving craft?

By the way...Boat insurance is available.

[P-40]

Seems to me that this type of commandeering should be legal during declared emergencies.

It is. Compensation is also required although not always honored.

I can see no reason why insurance would have paid in this case.

[Physicist]

Seems to me that this type of commandeering should be legal during declared emergencies. It is legal to loot necessary supplies from stores during such situations. Why not a life saving craft?

Nobody's being brought up on charges. It's just a question of who should bear the cost.

I haven't heard anyone make an argument as to why the boat's owner should be the one to bear the cost.