<p>
</p>
<p>And I believe that the helper is enriched by the act of helping. Karma seems to balance the books over time.</p>
<p>I think “karma” contemplates the books being balanced over multiple lifetimes. I guess the parents of children who die in the course of dangerous stunts will find consolation in the notion that their offspring will have better, future reincarnated lives… and that those who didn’t come to the rescue will suffer in whatever reincarnated future their souls may endure.</p>
<p>Personally, I figure that “karma” means that those parents will find that they are reincarnated as slugs. I don’t see anything in the notion of “karma” that provides an avenue of redemption for stupidity.</p>
<p>I’ve been following the posts of the last couple of days and I think some comments and observations are in order. Let me first make crystal clear that I think Abby’s parents were shockingly irresponsible in permitting their daughter to attempt her circumnavigation in the manner in which it was done for a variety of reasons which I will refrain from enumerating at this juncture. That being said:</p>
<p>The fervor with which some are contending that the family should be forced to pay for the costs of the rescue clearly reflects a subjective desire to make the parents “pay” for being “bad” parents, because what they did shocks the sensitivities of those who view the role of parents to be that of protecting their children from harm and the exercise of parental control and diligence to prevent a child from making decisions fraught with serious dangers. However, this is an emotional reaction that is devoid of a real understanding of the circumstances which developed, maritime law and long established maritime tradition. First, what occurred to Abby could have happened to anyone, regardless of age, the boat or the number of crew on board. To cite her young age, the equipment she used and that it was a solo trip carries no real weight. The exact same thing could have and does happen with older more experienced sailors, the best equipped and designed blue water cruisers and with crews of multiple persons on board. Moreover, the governmental agencies involved are charged with the mission and have a duty to rescue a mariner in life endangering situations. Further, the captains of private vessels have a legal obligation to render assistance. All of this derives from a centuries old traditional of morals and ethics applicable to life at sea that has now been codified by international law. Anyone interested in reading a pretty good article about this can go to <a href=“http://www.panoptica.org/julho_agosto07/009_76A1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.panoptica.org/julho_agosto07/009_76A1.pdf</a> . Of course, if the operator of a vessel at sea engages in conduct that causes the circumstances at hand in violation of the rules and regulations applicable to the operation of the vessel, there can be fines and damages to pay under maritime law but no one has alleged that Abby, in the operation of her vessel, violated any maritime regulation. In addition, this has nothing to do with the salvage rights that a private operator of a vessel that comes to the assistance of a vessel in distress may have under the circumstances permitted under maritime law, but that’s not what anyone was talking about. So for those who thing that Abby’s parents should be forced to pay for the costs of rescue, I urge you to think about how that concept would adversely effect time honored traditions and legal concepts applicable to life at sea, with the serious detrimental impact it would have on maritime life.</p>
<p>I also find interesting that many propound with great force and conviction that the parents should be prosecuted by CPS or some other government institution for child abuse or neglect. This reflects, in my view, a preoccupation with this situation that is wholly disproportionate to the nature of the events and that is being fed by a media/internet frenzy. Maybe it’s because the concept of sailing a small boat around the world is so alien and outside the realm of most people’s experience. Maybe it’s because we, as a society and culture, now lead such safe lives wholly divorced from the physical risks that were an inherent part of life a few hundred years ago. Maybe it’s because we are a society and culture that ever increasingly prolongs childhood and adolescence for our children that we forget that there was a time not all that long ago when these 16 year old “children” were expected to shoulder the responsibilities and exercise the judgment of adults with all the dangers and risks that were involved in many physically demanding and arduous circumstances. Today, we keep our children “young” and sheltered far longer. Frankly, I would like to see the same passion and zeal directed at Abby’s parents redirected to parents who physically abuse and neglect their kids every day in our cities and towns but under circumstances that have become “commonplace” and which are not such a media moment.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, for those concerned about these parents trying to hook a book deal or a reality show, it’s boards like these with the endless fascination fueled by the internet that will create a market for such tripe.</p>
<p>^^what he said. </p>
<p>And, calmom–my son and I would help your child gratis. All that insurance really does is help IF the child is alive to be treated or to get their body back home.</p>
<p>The kindness and help of stangers is often vital to avoid the body scenario. And in many places those really interested in your money are more likely to be in the threat column than in the assistance column.</p>
<p>MichaelNKat – my comments about payment have nothing to do with “punishing” the parents. It has to do with my view of personal responsibility – I believe people should pay for the damage the cause. I don’t know what maritime law provides… but on land, people are civilly liable when their negligence or reckless behavior causes monetary damage to others. For example, if a 16 year old kid drives a car into a ditch – the kid’s parents are going to be billed for the cost of towing the car out of the ditch. That’s not punishment – its just a basic tenet of civil liability, at least on land. </p>
<p>I mean, when my kids were small, sometimes they broke things. (A lamp, a window, etc.) I made them pay to fix or replace whatever they broke. You might see that as punishment – I saw it as simply teaching them that they were responsible for the consequences of their own actions. </p>
<p>As a lawyer, I see two different kinds of liability – one is liability for actual damages, the other is punitive damages. I haven’t argued for punitive damages. Most of the posters here talking about payment have referenced insurance or posting bonds – that’s not punitive. That’s simply our view of basic notions of responsibility.</p>
<p>calmom, just so you know, MichaelNKat is also a lawyer. :D</p>
<p>07Dad, the purpose of insurance is to PAY THE COSTS. How much money out of your own pocket would you be willing to pay to finance the cost of rescuing some stranger in trouble hundreds of miles from you? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000?</p>
<p>I think MichaelNKat has given the best information in post #383</p>
<p>calmom, I do think you have a point. And it isn’t that the parents should pay for being “bad parents.” Simply, some rescues involve great cost and if the rescuers are private citizens and not search/rescue organizations/agencies, it seems that the person being rescued who took it upon themselves to knowingly do something that had a great chance of needing a rescue, might help with those expenses. It is not the same as 07Dad who helped someone in danger who they came across on their rafting trip. And it is not the same as stopping your car by the road when you see a car accident. In the case of the fishing vessel, the operators had to leave for a couple of days of doing commerce, likely at a loss of revenue, in order to assist someone. Yes, anyone would do it who is a decent human being. No question. But even if that is expected, there is the issue of the great cost involved and why it should all fall on the shoulders of the good samaritans and not the person who knowingly chose to do something risky that had a great chance of needing rescue services. Perhaps an insurance policy for such things would be in order.</p>
<p>Like I mentioned earlier, around here, if you knowingly make a decision to ski out of bounds which is riskier (and it happens to be something my husband does all the time!), then you are expected to reimburse those who searched and rescued you. (as an aside…my husband never does it alone…someone doing it alone is at an even higher degree of risk)</p>
<p>Ah, soozie you outed me! :)</p>
<p>calmom, even if one were to apply your analysis without regard to maritime law, I haven’t read anything that suggests that this incident occurred due to negligence or reckless disregard for the safety or even the rights of others. There is nothing to indicate that Abby was negligent, reckless or in violation of maritime regulations in the equipping and operation of her boat. Neither Abby nor her parents engaged in conduct that has a causal relationship to damages suffered by any party. While the fishing vessel diverted from its intended course, it was the closest vessel and was responding to a mariner at serious risk of injury or death in a disabled vessel in a storm. If the decision to respond turns on an “evaluation” of whether the mariner in distress has been negligent and thereby would be liable for “compensatory damages”, the whole system of assistance at sea disintegrates.</p>
<p>The model applicable to life on shore, though, doesn’t apply to life at sea for many compelling reasons. What happened to Abby is not an extraordinary event; it is part of the inherent fabric of life at sea. The article I cited above does a pretty good job of explaining the jurisprudence of rescue and assistance at sea and the special “societal contract” that exists which serves as the foundation of modern international maritime law.</p>
<p>Oops, Michael, sorry…I know you have publicly mentioned your line of work on the MT Forum but I could tell that calmom was unaware…different crowd here!</p>
<p>This is an interesting discussion. I’m wondering why we have to pay for the ambulance in a car accident (even with insurance, it can be a high deductible) and then in these other situations there are no costs at all to the person being rescued.</p>
<p>Obviously the laws governing the open sea are quite different from what one might find here in the US. The subject has been a topic of debate among rescue groups and most oppose billing. But some local groups and cities do bill.</p>
<p>[Golden</a> to stop billing for rescues | The Denver Post ? All Things Colorado Sports](<a href=“http://blogs.denverpost.com/sports/2009/06/09/golden-to-stop-billing-for-rescues/]Golden”>http://blogs.denverpost.com/sports/2009/06/09/golden-to-stop-billing-for-rescues/)</p>
<p>Here’s another interesting article discussing limited circumstances, based on a quasi-contractual theory, under which a vessel providing assistance can obtain compensation for a “life salvage”. It turns on a distinction between “assistance” and “rescue” (assistance gets the rescuee off the stricken vessel and onto the rescuer’s vessel, rescue involves taking the rescuee to another destination upon request). </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mikkelborg.com/files/salvage.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mikkelborg.com/files/salvage.pdf</a></p>
<p>Just teasing soozie 
.</p>
<p>
You’re the one who posted that was nuts to attempt a solo crossing in the craft she was using at this time of year. She did something that is inherently dangerous. I agree that there was no inherent risk to others… but then, when she ran into trouble, she (or her family) expected others to come to her rescue. </p>
<p>
The issue of compensation has nothing to do with rescue – if anything, if you create a system of liability and compensation, you increase the likelihood of rescue. I mean – why should a commercial vessel deviate from its course at the cost of thousands of dollars if there is no possibility of even partial reimbursement? </p>
<p>I don’t think the law of the sea necessarily requires that a ship travel the distances involved in this case to effect a rescue. The only standard is what’s “reasonable”. If we are using the word “reasonable” to determine whether or not a ship is obligated to lend assistance… then why can’t we use the exact same standard to determine whether or not people who set themselves up for needing rescuing can be expected to contribute to the cost. </p>
<p>And what’s going to “disintegrate”? Glory-seekers won’t attempt solo crossings of the open sea in undersized, underpowered vessels any more?</p>
<p>
All the more reason why they should have been forced to buy insurance or pay up. I think Calmom’s arguments are 100% on the mark.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Annually or per event? Let’s see. Katrina, tsunami-----</p>
<p>I take it that you do not give to disaster relief. Do you stop and render assistance to stranded motorists? </p>
<p>In Dallas the other day [actually night], a guy on a motorcycle was going approximately 100 on an intercity highway when he lost control of his motorcycle. People saw him go down, used their cars to form a protective surround and those cars got hit by other motorists. One person who assisted received a injury. I seem to recall it was a broken bone. When asked about how he felt about having his car smashed and being injured for assisting someone who had clearly brought this on himself, he answered “how could I just drive on and not help?”</p>
<p>Let me see. If you cannot afford all this trip related insurance, you shouldn’t be traveling? Ought to change the slogan to “American Express you AREN’T ALLOWED to leave home unless you have it with the associated trip insurance etc.” Or institute a “financial means” test for a passport, or admission to a federal park. Or we could just tatoo “poor” on their forearm.</p>
<p>FYI–most of the world is NOT composed of people with the income of successful American lawyers.</p>
<p>calmom, I was stating my own view of whether the manner in which she attempted the crossing was smart or stupid, made sense or did not, given my perspective on how I would do it. None of that obviates the reality that there are many occasions where boats of that type successfully cross oceans and that those on different type of boats, who take different routes, at different times of the year run into the same type of calamity due to the inherent nature of the sea. What happened to her could have happened to anyone under the same or different conditions regardless of whether they were in a craft of the type at issue here or, let’s say, the venerable S&S 34 that is even smaller yet has a long history of oceanic crossings and circumnavigations or even the 54 ft blue water cruiser I will be doing a crossing with during November.</p>
<p>Creating a system of “liability and compensation” on the basis that you suggest does not increase the likelihood of rescue, it increases the likelihood that potential assistance will turn on an evaluation of whether there will be compensation. And what will disintegrate is a critical part of the centuries old system of values that serves as the foundation for life at sea and the aspects of maritime law applicable to the doctrine of “assistance”. It will effect not only the “glory seekers” as you characterize Abby or her parents (and probably accurately so, but that’s not the issue), but also all private small craft and commercial seagoing endeavors as the decision of whether to render assistance or not ends up turning on the availability of compensation. “Reasonable” efforts to render assistance is already defined in maritime law as is a system of compensation based on the rules of salvage and quasi-contractual doctrines. There are also rules involving negligence at sea. The problem is that you are trying to apply concepts more applicable to auto accidents than to the jurisprudence that has evolved concerning maritime life.</p>
<p>If you haven’t read the articles I linked to, take the time to do so. You may find them interesting and informative.</p>
<p>If I understand MichaelNKat correctly, it would appear that if it had been the French fishing vessel in distress and Abby had been the nearest boat capable of providing assistance, she would have been obligated to render that assistance, even if it meant losing her record attempt. So perhaps we could think of the obligation she was under to provide assistance as her insurance policy.</p>