Claiming from hire company for damage

[Guest]

OK, but it's difficult to believe that one party is entirely responsible for a serious collision involving two boats coming in opposite directions. It makes sense to take action to minimise the impact. Most car drivers learn to expect the unexpected and react promptly to take avoiding action.

That is where your independent witness comes into play, just like a RTC. Obviously less chance of finding one on the canals I would say.

 

I have certainly had a few near misses with obviously inexperienced hire boaters who have clearly lost control of their vessel and then clearly panicked trying to stop.

 

eg One day boat on the Bridgewater from memory nearly ran me into the offside trees which could have broken windows, I put the scratched paint I received down to experience.

 

(In fact when I was less experienced I too had a couple of hairy moments with other boats) - it happens.

[mango]

If we have done to death the consequences of a collision between a hire and private boater, please could we explore the cover afforded by the collision damage waiver that most hirers pay for. As I mentioned above, this specifically excludes certain things, such as damage caused by sitting a boat on the cill. What I want to know is whether the hirer is responsible for repairs to the boat or recovery and repairs, and what would happen if they sank the boat in a lock and wrecked the interior and engine?

[Cheshire cat]

It's a tricky one, probably handled in the small print that no-one reads.

You turn up to hire, you get your instruction video to watch, you are desperate to get out on the cut so you sign to say you have watched the video without noticing it makes you accept responsibility for your actions.

 

We have come across several hire boats (usually several each trip) who don't know what they are doing despite supposedly having had instruction. They are usually willing to learn but there was rather a lot to take in during the briefing back at the base.

 

If they are sober I'll always try to be as accommodating as possible when it comes to inexperienced hirers. The future of the waterways depends on it. I think the hire companies realise that too and would only look for recompense where damage was caused through recklessness.

[mango]

Although I have never cilled a boat I once mangled a prop and damaged the outdrive on a hire cruiser by hitting something solid under water. Fortunately I was not far from the hire base because the leg just tilted in reverse, so I had effectively no brakes. I apologised when I got back and heard no more.

 

I had completely forgotten that I have been involved in a the type of accident which I believe the damage waiver specifically excluded.

[Guest]

If we have done to death the consequences of a collision between a hire and private boater, please could we explore the cover afforded by the collision damage waiver that most hirers pay for. As I mentioned above, this specifically excludes certain things, such as damage caused by sitting a boat on the cill. What I want to know is whether the hirer is responsible for repairs to the boat or recovery and repairs, and what would happen if they sank the boat in a lock and wrecked the interior and engine?

I suspect that even though it's in the T&C's that such damage is not covered that in reality the hire co. takes the hit and doesn't pursue the customer. I haven't ever heard of a hire co. pursuing a customer for damages not covered by the CDW. Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened, but I reckon it's there as a backup should it become evident the customer was being utterly feckless or down right stupid when the boat was damaged.

 

If it was a genuine accident and the hire co. recognised it as such I guess they can choose not to pursue you even though I suppose technically it sounds they could do.

[bizzard]

A couple of years ago when I was about 6 I hired at 6d per half our a little kiddies paddle boat on the local park lake. After about 10 mins when I was in the middle and imagining myself sailing around Cape Horn the left hand paddle handle broke off and I was left with only the right paddle which caused me to scribe continuous beautiful circles in both forwards and astern. I was going nowhere so I stopped paddling and dozed off whilst waiting for the fickle wind to blow me to the bank which it eventually did. I explained to the boatman ''with tears in eyes'' in charge that that sixpence was my whole weeks pocket money gone west and I'd not had my full enjoyment out of his paddle boat. He gave me my tanner back.

Having had this early sample of the power of the wind I then took up dinghy sailing for a great many years.

[mango]

I suspect that even though it's in the T&C's that such damage is not covered that in reality the hire co. takes the hit and doesn't pursue the customer. I haven't ever heard of a hire co. pursuing a customer for damages not covered by the CDW. Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened, but I reckon it's there as a backup should it become evident the customer was being utterly feckless or down right stupid when the boat was damaged.

 

If it was a genuine accident and the hire co. recognised it as such I guess they can choose not to pursue you even though I suppose technically it sounds they could do.

I'll ask about the insurance exclusions next time I hire a boat. Maybe it would be best to leave this until I bring the boat back in one piece.

[mango]

A couple of years ago when I was about 6 I hired at 6d per half our a little kiddies paddle boat on the local park lake. After about 10 mins when I was in the middle and imagining myself sailing around Cape Horn the left hand paddle handle broke off and I was left with only the right paddle which caused me to scribe continuous beautiful circles in both forwards and astern. I was going nowhere so I stopped paddling and dozed off whilst waiting for the fickle wind to blow me to the bank which it eventually did. I explained to the boatman ''with tears in eyes'' in charge that that sixpence was my whole weeks pocket money gone west and I'd not had my full enjoyment out of his paddle boat. He gave me my tanner back.

Having had this early sample of the power of the wind I then took up dinghy sailing for a great many years.

A nice story to restore faith in human nature. Just explain a problem politely and most people will respond well, as long as they are not following the rules of a large organisation without customer focus. No doubt you would have worked out a creative solution to the problem if you had been a few years older.

[waterwitch]

What a hugely entertaining thread. Best laugh all week.

[Beaker]

What a hugely entertaining thread. Best laugh all week.

 

LOL!

 

<hides>

[John V]

Does that happen very often? Unless boat insurance is different from motor insurance, this would be settled by a knock-for-knock agreement. Thus I would expect my insurance to pay up if I had an accident and had complied with the terms (e.g. not admitting liability). Why worry people about problems that may not exist?

a tad but probably not so much that anyone will notice on this thread!

Does anyone know if accident occurring in inland waters are covered by similar laws to road vehicles or if they come under Admiralty law?

(under that, if a person successfully defends a claim it is dismissed as an "inevitable accident" and the defendant and claimant have to pay their own costs and are not able to claim for them from the other) ( they almost never say that one is to blame and the other not, they seem to always say one is more to blame than the other but give a percentage verdict i.e. 20% for one 80% for the other. It seems no one is blameless at sea!)

Edited August 20, 2014 by John V

[mango]

a tad but probably not so much that anyone will notice on this thread!

Does anyone know if accident occurring in inland waters are covered by similar laws to road vehicles or if they come under Admiralty law?

(under that, if a person successfully defends a claim it is dismissed as an "inevitable accident" and the defendant and claimant have to pay their own costs and are not able to claim for them from the other) ( they almost never say that one is to blame and the other not, they seem to always say one is more to blame than the other but give a percentage verdict i.e. 20% for one 80% for the other. It seems no one is blameless at sea!)

We could do with someone who works in the insurance industry. It's disappointing that we have not learned more.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

So, Anyway.

 

On the occasions IF DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCURS

 

I guess the same 'Rules' apply if there was a Boat to Boat contact as with a Vehicle to Vehicle contact. & if someone was hurt then again Same would apply as above, and involve the police 'Maybe ?'. Is that about right ?.

 

Whiteness

Photos

Exchange Details.

 

If the other Boat in the contact refuses to stop,

Treat as Hit n run or Failure to stop.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[Guest]

Good one, Ive got one too.

 

Julynian calls boilerman and says, <blurb removed>

lololol

Troll & proud indeed.

[billS]

So, Anyway.

 

On the occasions IF DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCURS

 

I guess the same 'Rules' apply if there was a Boat to Boat contact as with a Vehicle to Vehicle contact. & if someone was hurt then again Same would apply as above, and involve the police 'Maybe ?'. Is that about right ?.

 

Whiteness

Photos

Exchange Details.

 

If the other Boat in the contact refuses to stop,

Treat as Hit n run or Failure to stop.

 

Gosh - I thought race discrimination laws had outlawed this sort of thing!

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Ooops, What have I done !

 

Gosh - I thought race discrimination laws had outlawed this sort of thing!

[gazza]

I should have known better. That's 1/2 Hour of my life I will never get back :-(

[Alan de Enfield]

Just wondered if the following would make the liabilty any clearer :

 

Excerpt from a maritime legal document...

It is with regret and haste that I write this letter to you, regret that such a small misunderstanding could lead to the following circumstances, and haste in order that you will get this report before you form your own pre-conceived opinions from reports in the world press, for I am sure that they will tend to overdramatise the affair.

 

We had just picked up the pilot and the apprentice had returned from changing the ‘G’ flag for the ‘H’ and, it being his first trip, was having difficulty rolling the ‘G’ flag up, I therefore proceeded to show him how. Coming to the last part, I told him to “let go.” The lad, although willing, is not too bright necessitating my having to repeat the order in a sharper tone.

At this moment the chief officer appeared from the chart room, having been plotting the vessel’s progress and, thinking that it was the anchors that were being referred to, repeated the ‘let go’ to the third officer on the fo’cstle. The port anchor having been cleared away but not walked out, was promptly let go.

 

The effect of letting the anchor drop from the ‘pipe’ while the vessel was proceeding at full harbour speed proved too much for the windlass brake, and the entire length of the port cable was pulled out ‘by the roots.’ I fear that the damage to the chain locker may be extensive.

 

The braking effect of the port anchor naturally caused the vessel to sheer in that direction, right towards the swing bridge that spans the tributary to the river up which we were proceeding. The swing bridge operator showed great presence of mind by opening the bridge for my vessel. Unfortunately, he did not think to stop vehicular traffic, the result being that the bridge partly opened and deposited a Volkswagen, two cyclists, and a cattle truck on the foredeck. My ship’s company are at present rounding up the contents of the latter, which from the noise I would say were pigs.

 

In his efforts to stop the progress of the vessel, the third officer dropped the starboard anchor, too late to be of prcatical use, for it fell on the swing bridge operator’s control cabin. After the port anchor was let go and the vessel started to sheer, I gave a double ring full astern on the engine room telegraph and personally rang the engine room to order maximum astern revolutions. I was informed that the sea temperature was 53 degs and asked if there was a film tonight. My reply would not add constructively to this report.

 

Up to now I have confined my report to the activities at the forward end of the vessel. Down aft they were having their own problems. At the moment the port anchor was let go, the second officer was supervising the making fast of the after tug and was lowering the ship’s towing spring down onto the tug. The sudden braking effect on the port anchor caused the tug to run in under the stern of my vessel just at the moment when the propellers was answering my double ring full astern.

 

The prompt action of the second officer in securing the inboard end of the towing spring delayed the sinking of the tug by some minutes, and thereby the safe abandoning of that vessel. It is strange but at the very same moment of letting go the port anchor there was a power cut ashore. The fact that we were passing over a cable area at that time might suggest we may have touched something on the river bed. It is perhaps lucky that the high tension cables brought down by the foremast were not live, possibly being replaced by the underwater cable, but owing to the shore blackout, it is impossible to say where the pylon fell.

 

It never fails to amaze me the actions and behaviour of foreigners during moments of minor crisis. The pilot, for instance, is at this moment huddled in the corner of my day cabin alternately crooning to himself and crying after having consumed a bottle of gin in a time that is worthy of inclusion in the Guinness Book of Records. The tug captain on the other hand reacted violently and had to be forcibly restrained by the steward, who has him handcuffed in the ship’s hospital, where he is telling me to do impossible things with my ship and my crew.

 

I enclose the names and addresses of the drivers and insurance companies of the vehicles on my foredeck, which the third officer collected after his somewhat hurried evacuation of the fo’cstle. These particulars will enable us to file claims for the damage that they did to the railing of the number 1 hold.

 

I am enclosing this preliminary report for I am finding it difficult to concentrate with the sound of police sirens and their flashing lights. It is sad to think that had the apprentice realised that there is no need to fly pilot flags after dark, none of this would have happened. For weekly accountability report I will assign the following casualty numbers T/750101 to T750119 inclusive.

 

Yours truly,

Master

[Bettie Boo]

What a example. .of how utterly stupid of some of our newer members are......and BTW you are also factually incorrect, I didn't make the complaint because they were simply closed for maintenance on a Sunday.

 

 

For the record though it bought a car seat and safety gate for the new granddaughter....

Rather harsh and sweeping statement IMHO....another comment to make new members feel welcome and encourage them to post

[Guest]

Rather harsh and sweeping statement IMHO....another comment to make new members feel welcome and encourage them to post

But in this case (and some others) it is true. It was a stupid comment to make because it had nothing to do with this thread (the issue of hire boat liability) and it was all part of an on going personal attack that originated in another thread were I was referred to in derogatory terms by the poster in question.

 

Before you jump on posts I suggest you consider there might be more behind it than just taking it in isolation (especially if you are going to resurrect a two week old argument where the context of them may get lost).

[nicknorman]

But in this case (and some others) it is true. It was a stupid comment to make because it had nothing to do with this thread (the issue of hire boat liability) and it was all part of an on going personal attack that originated in another thread were I was referred to in derogatory terms by the poster in question.Before you jump on posts I suggest you consider there might be more behind it than just taking it in isolation (especially if you are going to resurrect a two week old argument where the context of them may get lost).

It's certainly true that those who are not addicted to the forum such as you and I, often miss the full context which, as you say, sometimes links to other threads. This issue was such a case.

 

However another thing to contemplate is that when faced with a personal attack, is responding in similar terms ever going to achieve anything except to prolong the fight? There is unlikely to be a respite until someone gives some ground or simply ignores what the other side are saying. In the mean time, the observers have to endure a nasty exhange of pointless insults.

[Guest]

It's certainly true that those who are not addicted to the forum such as you and I, often miss the full context which, as you say, sometimes links to other threads. This issue was such a case.

 

However another thing to contemplate is that when faced with a personal attack, is responding in similar terms ever going to achieve anything except to prolong the fight? There is unlikely to be a respite until someone gives some ground or simply ignores what the other side are saying. In the mean time, the observers have to endure a nasty exhange of pointless insults.

The problem is Nick you can either ignore the posts or read them. A quick scroll of the mouse and they are gone. Too often people choose to read the comments so that they can be 'truly annoyed or offended' and say so on here.

 

As I have pointed out on here before if you watch the numbers of members watching a particular topic when there is a good old spat going on (like this thread a couple of nights ago) the numbers doing so grows as it is obvious some members enjoy a good old spat going on but of course it would be wrong to admit so in public.

[Bettie Boo]

But in this case (and some others) it is true. It was a stupid comment to make because it had nothing to do with this thread (the issue of hire boat liability) and it was all part of an on going personal attack that originated in another thread were I was referred to in derogatory terms by the poster in question.

 

Before you jump on posts I suggest you consider there might be more behind it than just taking it in isolation (especially if you are going to resurrect a two week old argument where the context of them may get lost).

Martin, just so I am clear on your above suggestions. Because someone referred to you in a derogatory term as part of a personal attack in some other thread which I may or may not have read, I should have realized your rather sweeping statement of "how utterly stupid some of our new members are" was in retaliation to this and therefore justified, and I shouldn't have commented on it.

 

Also, you would like me to consider before posting, the age of the comment or post I'm referring to, as if it's over 2 weeks old, because somehow over that time frame the context of your written word may be "lost" or changed?

 

 

 

Whether your comment was 2 minutes old or 2 months old; it was IMO sweeping and harsh. You probably meant to direct it at one individual, but for whatever reason thought it best to make it a more general comment and in doing so potentially alienating some of our new members by calling them stupid. I don't really see how that could possibly be taken out of context - but that's just my humble opinion.

 

It's a discussion forum - we've been a bit busy the last 3 weeks and I haven't been spending anywhere near as much time online as I did in the past. When I have a chance to read the odd thread and if I have something to say or a comment to make I will do just that. Like it or lump it, my friend.

It's certainly true that those who are not addicted to the forum such as you and I, often miss the full context which, as you say, sometimes links to other threads. This issue was such a case.

 

However another thing to contemplate is that when faced with a personal attack, is responding in similar terms ever going to achieve anything except to prolong the fight? There is unlikely to be a respite until someone gives some ground or simply ignores what the other side are saying. In the mean time, the observers have to endure a nasty exhange of pointless insults.

Well said, tried to give a greenie, but they are all gone today

[Guest]

It's a discussion forum - we've been a bit busy the last 3 weeks and I haven't been spending anywhere near as much time online as I did in the past. When I have a chance to read the odd thread and if I have something to say or a comment to make I will do just that. Like it or lump it, my friend.

I am happy to 'like it or lump' it as you so eloquently put it, as I trust you are.

 

However my post stands as far as I am concerned. Had I said 'all' then I would agree with you. The fact is I didn't. Members (new or old) who attack or have a go at other members (new or old) are wrong to expect they will not get a response (sometimes a 'robust' one) when they do.

 

What is interesting and what you also missed is the member who you were referring to in such glowing terms in your earlier post in the 'What happened to....' thread actually agreed with me but some of his posts in this thread appear to have been removed along with his post saying this.

 

I wonder if you had seen this, along with his comments fired off at other members in this thread would you have been so 'glowing' - I would guess probably not.

 

As for dragging up old arguments and spats that are weeks old - when the dust has settled and they have died down I find it curious that somebody wants to 're ignite' them, and then on the other hand endorse (Nick's) comments about having to endure a 'prolonged' fight, curious, very curious, and with a little whiff of hypocrisy about it.

Edited August 25, 2014 by The Dog House

[Up-Side-Down]

So did this incident result in a happy outcome???