Question for Law Enforcement?

[C-Ya]

I would like to know the California Statute that restricts the operation of personal watercraft to the age 16 years or older.
I am making a demand on the owner of the Jet-Ski that T-Boned my Hallett and I would like to cite the statute.
Thank You,
C-Ya

[Kindsvater Flat]

Not law enforcement but a fire chief. Here you will receive a citation if you are under the age of 16.

[Akamatsu]

Not LE, however I can use an internet search engine... Here you go:
Harbors and Navigation 658.5 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/harbnav/harnav658_5.htm)
Good luck.
Akamatsu

[SandbarScot]

Akamatsu has the right answer: Section 658.5 of teh California Harbors and Navigation Code.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Make that bastard pay for the repairs Jonathon!

[C-Ya]

Akamatsu,
Thank you very much.
Here is the latest the way I see it:
California resident "Joe Apartment-Dweller" lends out his uninsured PWC to his son's 14 year old high school friend, while camping on the California side of the Parker Strip. "Pimple Dick" 14 year old gets on the PWC and decides that he is proficient enough on PWC to go jump boat wakes. While that "Peach Fuzz" was so enjoying himself, he came over a boat wake and, well, hmm, there I was just floating with my wife, MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS.
"Sh!t for brains" had plenty of time and distance between the two of us to make any number of decisions, and he probably would have missed me had he just continued on his path (though it would have been dam close) but instead, like so many other novice/no business on a pwc person/beginner, he let's off the throttle and leans it in the direction that he wants to go......Scoring a direct broadside (actually at a slight angle) putting a hole through 5 colors of my jelcoat and ripping the rub-rail out, right at the passenger seat, where my wife sits.
"Joe Apartment Dweller" wanted me arrested for holding the kid hostage when he finally showed up, after the CRIT police were already on scene. Yes, the kid did want to take off.....Yes, I did not let him go. So what is it, me holding him hostage or him wanting to leave the scene of the accident. We took his teather so could not take off. Though I will admit, I wanted to beat the crap out of him, but I had to settle for just cussing him out, which did make him cry? (under the circumstances, he got off lucky)
"Joe Apartment Dweller's" present attitude is that it will cost me more to sue him than it is worth, but I am thinking about suing him in cival court (not small claims) for negligent entrustment. Which will surely F*** him over since my wife is an attorney and I will make sure that I garnish his "Circle K" wages for the next 10 years!!!!!
C-Ya

[SCUBA STEVE]

C-YA, your boat is boat insured?

[little rowe boat]

I say if you have the time and resources to go after him and make him pay then go for it.It will make him think twice about doing it again. :cool:

[HalletDave]

Go after the wretched bastard. wink

[C-Ya]

Well here's the dealio,
I have contacted my insurance company but I have yet to make a claim. Even if I were to make a claim "Joe Apartment Dweller" would still owe me for my $500.00 deductable, my towing bill (which inludes 680 mile for Parker to Irwindale to Phoenix and 800 mile Phoenix to Irwindale to Phoenix) @ .35 cents per mile, and my loss of use (July 4th to Mid September). What's that worth? So, to keep my word with "Joe Apartment Dweller", because I told him that I was going to sue him, I will hold him responsible for EVERYTHING!!!! I am not hurting for finances at the present time so I already paid for the damage out of my own pocket which was around $2300.00 but I did have a couple of things done that will be deducted from the bill that he will recieve.
If I let this guy off the hook, maybe the next time he lends out a PWC to some minor, maybe it will be YOUR BOAT that he runs into. Because I saw the same kid riding the PWC the next day, so he has got no clue......he's a moron that I want to teach a lesson to.
C-Ya

[Slick]

C-Ya:
I would like to know the California Statute that restricts the operation of personal watercraft to the age 16 years or older.
I am making a demand on the owner of the Jet-Ski that T-Boned my Hallett and I would like to cite the statute.
Thank You,
C-Ya Jonathon,
That sucks. Your Hallett was one perfect example of "showroom condition". Sorry to hear that.
Slick

[BoatPI]

section 658.5 Harbor and Navagation Code.
Exceptions include sail boat operation, competitions, etc.

[Laveyman]

Stick it so far up daddy's a$$ that he can taste it coming ou the other end! Like you said, it could be any one of us next.

[Trailer Park Casanova]

Does anyone else get that sick,, hollow feeling like I do when you almost kill a PWC'er.
God I hate that feeling.
They swerve in front of you from nowhere,, you miss them by a gellcoat,, and you day is ruined,,,
Man I hate that feeling,,,,

[Just Tool'n]

Sue him to the gills, then next time he might think diffrently about the irresponsible thing he did by loaning out his PWC.
Plus just think of the responsable Pimp D*ck Kid will be when he grows up!

[Faster Daddy]

Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. If I were Joe Apartment Dweller, the first thing that I would have done (after I was done kiss'in your ass apologizing for not properly supervizing the kid) is make arrangements to take care of the damage. As for the kid, I'd hope in turn that his parents would take responsibility for their spawn, re-pay Joe, the have that stupid bastard of a kid working his ass-off to repay his parents. eek!
The kid would learn a good life lesson, but thats hoping for way too much these days!

[Dr. Eagle]

Sooo did the guy have a Mullett?
What'd the cop say about the Held Hostage vs. Fleeing the scene argument with Mr. Mullett (taking a flying leap here)?

[burtandnancy]

Can't you go after the parents (homeowners) of the idiot kid? I hope you follow every avenue. And how lucky is it that your wife is an attorney...

[6 Dollar Boat]

I agree with burtandnancy, the kids parents have responsibility. Maybe they have some insurance, or they can split the cost with Mr. Apt.

[Dr. Eagle]

Yeah, I say go after the whole damn bunch...

[phebus]

Amen, put the screws to him. I'm so sick of people that don't take responsibility for their actions. :mad:

[Dr. Eagle]

phebus:
Amen, put the screws to him. I'm so sick of people that don't take responsibility for their actions. :mad: Well, it makes sense, the operator was at fault, and the owner let him take the jetski...probably without briefing him on the rules. I was always told when you are in an accident sue everyone and let the court sort it out. Besides it may just broaden the responsible parties enough that you will actually get reimbursed...or at least it will improve the chances.

[Dusty Times]

C-2
You are being way to kind on the .35 per mile. You would never get you boat transported for that fee and you souldn't have to do it for free. That might barely cover your hard costs.
Like others have said if Joe Apartment was a little more appollogetic you wouldn't need to teach him such a good lesson.
Sorry about your gel coat. Just glad he didn't come over the side and hit you wife. The outcome could have been worse.

[Dr. Eagle]

Dusty Times:
C-2
You are being way to kind on the .35 per mile. You would never get you boat transported for that fee and you souldn't have to do it for free. That might barely cover your hard costs.
Like others have said if Joe Apartment was a little more appollogetic you wouldn't need to teach him such a good lesson.
Sorry about your gel coat. Just glad he didn't come over the side and hit you wife. The outcome could have been worse. That is a fact there is a lot to be thankful for.

[Seadog]

If he pays the bill without the lawsuit, that is fine. If he has you take it to court, then he should owe you for legal fees and time spent. None of the majority of this board likes to use the court system, but what alternative is left. we honestly need a method of arbitration for situations like this, with fines for nonsense, such as the 'kidnapping' claim. It is called citizen's arrest.

[TheLurker]

The trial lawers and the " Im not responsible for myself clients" are sending this country down the toilet.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part09.html#next
Example the grocery clerks are on strike over medical benifits. Why because medical costs and drugs are sky high in this country because of frivilous law suits. Look at how cheap perscription drugs are in canada compaired to this country
Imagine how much money Rush Limbaugh could have saved. devil

[Dr. Eagle]

RiverDave:
"sue everyone and let the courts sort it out."
WTF???? I thought most boaters were against "frivelous" lawsuits. I'm not saying that the "original" suit against joe apt dweller is invalid (personally I think the guy shoulda manned up and paid for the repairs and then some)but going after someones homeowners, or in fact "suiing everyone" (jetski mfg?) etc.. is kinda crossing a line don't ya think?
Or are we against lawsuits only when there not in our favor?
RD Well RD, sorry to admit it, but that actually comes from my brother in law, an attorney and bleeding heart liberal, two facts I must constantly forgive him for.
I am absolutely opposed to frivolous lawsuits. That being said, there was more than one party clearly involved in this case. Suing only the owner and not the operator at the time is only going to limit the opportunity to recoup the damages.
C-Ya was clearly not at fault, in the wrong place at the right or wrong time.
I was in a hurry when I made that post so perhaps I should have explained myself better...appologies. What I meant was all of the parties directly involved. Not the jetski manufacturer for making a suicide torpedo, not the boat manufacturer for making a boat that could be struck by another and not putting a label on it telling you so, not the oil company that refined the petroleum, it can get pretty insane...(frivolous)...I agree. But since there were multiple families involved in this accident as potentially responsible...I say sue them both and let the chips fall where they may.

[Dr. Eagle]

Also, most of the time when you have an accident, you go to your insurance company and get it fixed. You pay your deductible and the insurance company (usually) pursues the other party. If the insurance company feels that there is little chance of recovery, they decline to pursue it.
If they recover the money then you get your deductible reimbursed. Same thing once removed really, they do the suing or arbitration. The only problem is that when you do that (file a claim) somehow you get a black mark or gig against your record even though you weren't at fault and your rates go up. That is a truly unjust.
I have not had the misfortune in 25 years of boating to need to deal with this situation, but I have with my vehicle once or twice. The same principles apply to boats as to how the insurance companies pursue the responsible parties.
[ October 13, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Eagle ]

[XTRM22]

Normally I am against lawsuits of any kind and thing terrible things of lawyers (Mrs C-ya being the exception cause she has to be a saint to be married to Jonathon :D ) but this is one of those cases where an accident happened and the responsible parties aren't taking the responsibility! The owner of the Jetski and the adult responsible for the operator should be covering all Jonathons expenses on this and begging forgiveness to boot. The fact is 2-3000$ damage isn't going to render anyone homeless, and they should be forced to pay by however means necessary! I hope Jonathon sues em and wins whatever is resonable for his damages.
Chuck

[Dr. Eagle]

XTRM22:
Normally I am against lawsuits of any kind and thing terrible things of lawyers (Mrs C-ya being the exception cause she has to be a saint to be married to Jonathon :D ) but this is one of those cases where an accident happened and the responsible parties aren't taking the responsibility! The owner of the Jetski and the adult responsible for the operator should be covering all Jonathons expenses on this and begging forgiveness to boot. The fact is 2-3000$ damage isn't going to render anyone homeless, and they should be forced to pay by however means necessary! I hope Jonathon sues em and wins whatever is resonable for his damages.
Chuck Not only is the guy not taking responsibility, he was indignant to C-Ya, acting like it was his fault for being on the water! Worth the time to give him a life lesson, I'd say...

[Ziggy]

RiverDave:
"sue everyone and let the courts sort it out."
WTF???? I thought most boaters were against "frivelous" lawsuits. I'm not saying that the "original" suit against joe apt dweller is invalid (personally I think the guy shoulda manned up and paid for the repairs and then some)but going after someones homeowners, or in fact "suiing everyone" (jetski mfg?) etc.. is kinda crossing a line don't ya think?
Or are we against lawsuits only when there not in our favor?
RD I was thinking along these lines too- C-ya certainly deserves to be compensated for his repairs/costs etc. but to try dragging "everyone" into is just what we all hate.(I know it wasn't his post)
Hopefully it works out positively for C-ya and the other people involved learn a lesson, especially the kid who was riding the ski...IMO he should be put to work to pay costs, then he'd think twice about his actions. The owner of ski should be sent to some mandatory training(boating 101) for his actions and attitude. I little time to think and reflect before he lends out his "deadly weapon" top another kid.

[Dr. Eagle]

Ziggy:
RiverDave:
"sue everyone and let the courts sort it out."
WTF???? I thought most boaters were against "frivelous" lawsuits. I'm not saying that the "original" suit against joe apt dweller is invalid (personally I think the guy shoulda manned up and paid for the repairs and then some)but going after someones homeowners, or in fact "suiing everyone" (jetski mfg?) etc.. is kinda crossing a line don't ya think?
Or are we against lawsuits only when there not in our favor?
RD I was thinking along these lines too- C-ya certainly deserves to be compensated for his repairs/costs etc. but to try dragging "everyone" into is just what we all hate.(I know it wasn't his post)
Hopefully it works out positively for C-ya and the other people involved learn a lesson, especially the kid who was riding the ski...IMO he should be put to work to pay costs, then he'd think twice about his actions. The owner of ski should be sent to some mandatory training(boating 101) for his actions and attitude. I little time to think and reflect before he lends out his "deadly weapon" top another kid. You need to read my post above. I never intended to suggest that "everyone involved" included anyone except the parties DIRECTLY involved and LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE, the RIDER and the OWNER. I am JUST as OPPOSED to JOHN DOE lawsuits as are all of you!!!!!! Someone else (RD) decided to assume (ass-u-me) that included others not DIRECTLY involved.
Thank you for letting me set the record straight. Geeeeeeezzzzeeee

[C-Ya]

I only have "Joe Apartment Dweller" in my gun sights. He is the responsible party. He can then go after his son's friends parents, but he would have a very weak claim against them because califonia does not have a parental responsibility statute. I will still probably name them in my lawsuit, just to be a dick. I have no intentions of going after any other mfg or parties.
My goal is to get "Joe Apartment Dweller". In a perfect world, when I get done with him, instead of him being out at the river next summer, He will be JERKING-OFF his dog to FEED his cat, while living in his car....if he still has one!!! But, I am sure that I am just going to have to settle for a wage garnishment, which will give me some satisfaction.
Either way, I just want him to regret lending out the PWC and having no insurance. I refuse to let my insurance company bail him out! PERIOD
C-Ya

[Dr. Eagle]

C-Ya:
I only have "Joe Apartment Dweller" in my gun sights. He is the responsible party. He can then go after his son's friends parents, but he would have a very weak claim against them because califonia does not have a parental responsibility statute. I will still probably name them in my lawsuit, just to be a dick. I have no intentions of going after any other mfg or parties.
My goal is to get "Joe Apartment Dweller". In a perfect world, when I get done with him, instead of him being out at the river next summer, He will be JERKING-OFF his dog to FEED his cat, while living in his car....if he still has one!!! But, I am sure that I am just going to have to settle for a wage garnishment, which will give me some satisfaction.
Either way, I just want him to regret lending out the PWC and having no insurance. I refuse to let my insurance company bail him out! PERIOD
C-Ya Good C-Ya. My point (which I made poorly in a hasty post) was that since there were two parties involved that had at least some responsibility, you should at least name them both. Just to keep the finger pointing evasion from entering the case. If both parties are named they both have to be there and then Joe Apartment Dweller cannot point to a third party not present. Instead of saying you should sue everybody (which made some of us here on the forums think John Doe lawsuit) it would have been better to say sue or name them both. Anyway, I hope you get reimbursed for your damage and time and don't completely discount that loss of time on the water (loss of use). We all only have a certain amount of time on the planet after all...

[Dr. Eagle]

Stupid Me...Double Post! Oh well one more for the counter...
[ October 14, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Eagle ]