I think this fellow 'borrowed' a few boats that didn't belong to him either. Good thing.
Posted on 08/26/2006 10:48:53 AM PDT by bwteim
NEW ORLEANS A New Orleans man may have thought he'd get a thank-you for rescuing more than 200 people from Hurricane Katrina floodwaters.
Instead, he got a lawsuit.
John Lyons Junior is suing Mark Morice (mohr-EES') for taking his boat without permission and not returning it. Lyons' lawyer says Morice made no attempt to return the boat.
Morice says he left it for other rescuers to use. Lyons' 18-foot boat was one of three Morice said he commandeered after water started rising. Morice said one of the other boat owners told him he was glad he'd been able to hot-wire the boat, and the other boat owner apparently hasn't complained.
Please be sure to place a big sign on your head/chest the next time a disaster comes your way that reads:
"If you are trying to rescue me, and the equipment you are using is not your property, legally and fairly compensating the owner if it isn't, then please pass me by."
So the "authorities on hand were not doing the job, there were boats sitting in the rising water doing nothing, the owners were no-where around, and there were people needing rescuing. If I were in that situation, I would commandeer the boat and help folks out. I could not sit by and cover my own tail and let others die or whatever.
And exactly how was the guy to get the boat back to the owner? The original article says that the boat was already sitting in water (flood water was already up in the owner's yard enough to float the boat), and this was when the waters first started coming up. I guess he could have rammed the boat into the owner's home to secure it?
And it also appears that the boat was still being used to rescue people after he was evacuated.
I can understand the frustration over a lost boat that you spent your hard-earned (I assume) money on. But how selfish when there are much bigger concerns right now.
I think this fellow 'borrowed' a few boats that didn't belong to him either. Good thing.
I can't see any difference between those arguing in favor of suing a rescuer over a boat in such an extraordinary circumstance and those on the left who want all the benefits of freedom without ever having to pay the costs (refuse to fight for it.)
Both groups are Freedom's Freeloaders.
Ah ha! An important legal lesson for all to note: in an emergency do not, repeat, DO NOT, attempt to help anyone. You might be sued. Remember: every man, woman and child is on their own because there might be a lawyer waiting to sue you!
Excellent thing. But the question here is not whether Washington should have commandeered the boats, but whether (after all was said and done) the boat owners might have deserved compensation for any boat that was lost.
Apparently, the Founding Fathers agreed so strongly that they even put it into the Constitution.
"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.
In this case, the people being rescued aren't suing. Helping people is usually covered by Good Samaritan law.
Here is a Louisiana Statute that may pertain to that Good Samaritan law:
LSA-R.S. 9:2793. Gratuitous service at scene of emergency; limitation on liability
A. No person who in good faith gratuitously renders emergency care, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency, or moves a person receiving such care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission in rendering the care or services or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the person involved in the said emergency; provided, however, such care or services or transportation shall not be considered gratuitous, and this Section shall not apply when rendered incidental to a business relationship, including but not limited to that of employer-employee, existing between the person rendering such care or service or transportation and the person receiving the same, or when incidental to a business relationship existing between the employer or principal of the person rendering such care, service or transportation and the employer or principal of the person receiving such care, service or transportation. This Section shall not exempt from liability those individuals who intentionally or by grossly negligent acts or omissions cause damages to another individual.
B. The immunity herein granted shall be personal to the individual rendering such care or service or furnishing such transportation and shall not inure to the benefit of any employer or other person legally responsible for the acts or omissions of such individual, nor shall it inure to the benefit of any insurer.
This link
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/395/goodsamaritansurvey.doc
has several states.
May want to keep it;)
Only one little problem with your theory - those same lawyers are waiting to sue you if you DON'T attempt to help anyone....
So we are between a rock and a hard place. So I guess what we have to do is keep a lawyer on retainer to go with us when we try to help peopl, so that we don't mess up by using the wrong resources at hand to save lives...
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.
Yep - I ain't losing sleep over this one; I'm heading back to the Storm Watch thread...
oops! sole = soul
Morice being interviewed on Fox now
Morice just now on Fox said he spoke to John Lyons Junior's wife last fall, he thought they would be very happy with service that boat performed. (This was where he sent her pictures of the rescues, I think).
Morice said he ignored a letter John Lyons Junior sent in January claiming emotional damages and looking for $12,000.
Morice then said he just got served a week ago.
** Memo to self - don't ignore letters by folks looking for dollars. They may be serious.
"I haven't heard anyone make an argument as to why the boat's owner should be the one to bear the cost......"
Maybe being stupid enough to think he could live in NO without having to bear the risk?!!!
Great point.
My neighbor's portable generator was stolen from outside his garage last year. Would you argue that if the thief took it to carry off to New Orleans during the flood, then my neighbor should hail and celebrate and indemnify the thief?
"..... right this minute" you got some 'spainin to do here as , at this moment, NO is relatively dry.
Second of all..you establish precedence in this situation, nobody will ever again do anything for anybody anywhere under such circumstance.
frankly, the owner, whose boat appears to have been salvaged and put to good use under the circumstance, has'nt yet contacted anyone else who clearly used it and did'nt return it after Mark left it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.