HANCOCK, Maine — If someone dies using someone else’s property, is the property owner to blame?
A California woman who owns a property at Hancock Point is hoping to have that questioned answered before she might face a lawsuit over the death of a Massachusetts man who rented her cabin last summer.
Eric Hogan, 28, of Webster, Mass., was on his honeymoon last June when he died after paddling a kayak owned by Judith L. Bell of Aromas, Calif., out into Frenchman Bay.
Hogan and his new wife, Sarah Kellogg Hogan, had been married for three weeks and a day when he stood on solid ground for the last time. The young couple had gotten engaged while visiting Acadia National Park in August 2009. After getting married in Massachusetts on May 28, 2011, the bride and groom traveled back to Hancock County to stay in Bell’s rental cabin at Hancock Point, overlooking Sorrento Harbor to the east.
On Sunday, June 19, the day the newlyweds planned to return home, Eric got up early and donned shorts and a life jacket but no shirt and paddled out into Frenchman Bay. Hours later, after wind gusts of 30 mph and water temperatures between 55 and 60 degrees prevented him from returning to shore, the 28-year-old doctoral student was found dead, floating in the water off the Bar Harbor village of Hulls Cove.
Despite wearing a life preserver, Hogan was not well prepared for the conditions, officials have said. The style of kayak he was using was a sit-on-top model that did not have a cockpit. Hogan was not sheltered from the elements or secured to the vessel with straps or any other type of device, according to Maine Marine Patrol.
On March 28 of this year, Bell filed a petition in federal court in Bangor seeking to be exonerated or limited from liability in Hogan’s death. In court filings, Bell indicates she purchased the vessel, manufactured by Ocean Kayak, in May 2009 for $296.61.
In the petition, Bell indicates that she has not yet been sued but has received a notice of claim that has alerted her to a potential wrongful death lawsuit.
Bell’s attorney, William Welte of Camden, said this past week that his client filed the petition in federal court after receiving the notice of claim. He said receiving a notice of claim is not a guarantee that a lawsuit or actual claim will be filed.
“The hope is there will be be no claim,” Welte said.
Attempts this past week to contact Hogan’s widow and parents were unsuccessful. Voice mail messages left for Sarah Hogan were not returned.
Jennifer Wriggins, a law professor at University of Maine School of Law in Portland, said Friday that it is difficult to predict what kind of effect the outcome of such a case could have on the practice by some Maine property owners of renting out cottages as vacation homes.
“At this early stage, there’s not a lot that can be said [about the legal implication],” Wriggins said.
Generally speaking, such property owners do have some responsibilities but are not expected to be responsible for every possible mishap, she said.
“They generally owe a duty to exercise reasonable care” in maintaining the safety of their properties, Wriggins said. “People also generally have a duty to exercise reasonable care for their own safety.”
Hogan’s death, and the deaths of two other tourists who died while kayaking in Hancock County last summer, spurred public concern about safety precautions and what sort of responsibility business owners who rent out kayaks should have.
Though Hogan was wearing a life preserver, the issue of whether canoers and kayakers should be required to wear flotation devices, rather than just have them in the boat, also has been raised. A bill that would require such boaters to wear life preservers while out on the water has been introduced to the Legislature and could come up for consideration next year.
Follow BDN reporter Bill Trotter on Twitter at @billtrotter.
No,tell me they wont win this one.That would just be wrong….
No one can tell you that now.
I think it’s unlikely that the property owner would be found liable if a lawsuit is brought and the case goes to trial. But you never know. The only thing we do know is that if a suit is started, the property owner and her insurance carrier, assuming she has insurance, will be losers in the sense that they’ll have to appear in court and defend the case. Assuming insurance and enough coverage, the owner shouldn’t lose any money because the insurer will pay for the defense and damages. But the owner will have to put up with the inconvenience of being sued and all that involves – discovery, depositions, appearing in court, and the hassle of being subjected to an unpleasant process. So the person subjected to a frivolous lawsuit always loses, even when he “wins.”
But it doesn’t work that way for the plaintiff. As a practical matter, there usually aren’t any consequences if he loses. There’s no downside.
The most likely result here is that the insurance carrier will pay some hush money to make the thing go away. It’s a lot cheaper than paying for defense costs and having an indefinite liability on your books. Would that “just be wrong”? Yes, if there was a bright line between right and wrong in our civil justice system. But there isn’t, and that’s just the way it is.
wrong but not suprising if she did lose. After all this is America, where if someone’s actions cause themselves harm or death, it can’t be their own fault.
TORT REFORM!
so besides nattering a catchphrase, tell us, how would tort reform alter THIS?
Inexperienced, unprepared, uneducated, vessel not suited for conditions. These are all the victims fault. This is nothing more than lawsuit lottery looking for a win.
I agree that the victim holds the blame but stopping people from suing is unconstitutional. Don’t you believe in the US Constitution?
It depends on what tort reform included. If it prohibited contingent fees for lawyers, and provided that the loser of a lawsuit had to pay the prevailing party’s costs and attorney’s fees, it would greatly reduce the number of meritless actions.
Just because a plaintiff loses a lawsuit doesn’t mean the suit was “meritless.”
By the way, contingency fees help keep the number of lawsuits down, as lawyers who agree to take a case on a contingency basis are very selective in which cases to accept. Whether a plaintiff’s attorney is working for a contingency fee has no bearing at all on the award, if the plaintiff wins.
I agree with your first statement. But you will agree with me, will you not, that some suits are meritless? If not, how about frivolous?
I agree with your last last sentence, too, and I hope you’re not hinting that I made any suggestion to the contrary.
As to your claim that contingency fees help keep the number of lawsuits down, I simply can’t accept it, especially your premise that lawyers who take contingency fee cases are very selective. In fact, some lawyers are selective and some aren’t. I’ve know plenty who aren’t, and I’ve defended lots of cases taken on contingent fee that were meritless/frivolous.
You have not commented on my statement about loser paying the prevailing party’s costs and attorney’s fees. Do you agree that would reduce the number of meritless actions?
If a lawsuit is deemed frivolous then the presiding judge can direct the plaintive to pay the costs of the defence. There was an article just last week wehre this happened.
If the loser of a lawsuit was forced topay for defense costs how many people would sue anyone, even if they were damaged by the defendant? ALl a person/entity with a lot of money would have to do is threaten to make thier defense very expensive and that would scare away most people. The only entites that would sue then would be large corporations that could afford to pay the defense if they lost.
Yes, courts in some states are allowed to assess costs and attorney’s fees against the losing party for frivolous claims and defenses, and that should help deter frivolous claims. It’s a good beginning for tort reform. Loser pays goes beyond that and would be an even stronger deterrent.
Where was that article published that you mentioned? I’d like to read it.
Loser pays would certainly cut down frivolous lawsuits and probably even eliminate some claims with merit because of costs. It’s a balancing act between the elimination of bad claims v good claims that state courts and legislatures will have to reconcile in tort reform, and it may be that the plaintiffs’ bar will have to come up with some creative ways of charging for their services.
Of course the flip side to what you consider a bad thing – that the possible cost of paying the other side’s expenses would scare people away – is that not doing that encourages frivolous claims, and that is so because there’s usually nothing to lose: the insurer or defendant with deep pockets will usually cave in and pay some hush money rather that bear the cost of defense.
I think the article may have been in the Boston Globe but not sure.
As for a defendant having to pay court costs if they lose, would you risk taking on a Fortune 500 company with deep pockets if you knew that you would have to pay all of their court costs if you were to lose? They could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to scare you off and if they were to lose just write off the costs as part of doing business.
Even if you have a strong case does not mean you would win and a large company could litigate you right into the poor house even if you have a good case.
To answer your question: Yes, if the liability and damages made it worthwhile.
Let’s change the facts a little: You are the defendant in a suit that you consider meritless, but you have no insurance and will likely lose everything you have if the plaintiff wins what he is asking for, and you will have to pay his costs and attorney’s fees, too. Of course, you’ll have to pay your own lawyer, but if you prevail you’ll recover those costs from the plaintiff. You’ll probably win if the case goes to trial, but there’s a possibility you’ll lose and lose big; let’s say your total exposure, not including your own lawyer’s fees, is $2 million. Very shortly after suit is commenced, while your own attorney’s fees aren’t real large, the plaintiff makes a non negotiable settlement demand of $50,000, that will remain open for 10 days. That’s a lot of money for you, but you could pay it. Here’s the question: Are you going to accept that settlement demand.
I highly doubt you would risk owing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to the defendant if you were to lose the lawsuit, no matter the liability and damages. Most people can not risk losing if they have to pay the court costs of the defendant. That is why the Republican’s want losers of a lawsuit paying the defendant’s legal fees, they know this will stop most people from suing them for anything except for the most grievious ills.
As for your question, most people would accept the settlement unless they thought they had no chance of losing. People settle out of court all the time.
Why is it Republican’s want to limit the 7th Amendment right to sue?
And don’t blame the high costs of litigation and judgements. The vast majority of high judgements are later reduced by the courts, sometimes by over 50% or more.
You asked me a question, I answered it, and then you came back and said, “I highly doubt you would risk owing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to the the defendant if you were to lose the lawsuit, no matter the liability and damages.”
I hope you’re not calling me a liar, though it sounds like it. I don’t know what “most people” would do; I only know what I would do; and, as I said, it would depend on the liability and damages and if I thought it was worthwhile. So, if I thought it was a strong liability case with enough provable damages, I would proceed. Remember, if I prevail, the defendant will have to pay my costs and attorney’s fees, and I will have some comfort knowing that a Fortune 500 company with deep pockets will be able to pay them.
You should not forget that the hypothetical tort reform I posited would require the loser, whether plaintiff or defendant, to pay costs and attorneys fees. All parties are treated the same way.
And if there are no contingent fees, how will the less affluent among us ever get representation for their valid claims? Your system would be a boon for the insurance companies who would need only to deny every claim, no matter how valid.
The system we have has evolved because it best provides for civil justice while remaining privately financed. Contingent fees actually are an economic limiter on the cliche “frivolous” claims every one talks about yet can’t publically identify. Lawyers don’t pursue cases without some chance to get paid in the end. But under your proposal they would for a client with the cash.
Yes, that argument about the less affluent is one that plaintiffs’ lawyers always make about contingent fees, and it’s not a bad argument. There’s no doubt it would eliminate some good claims. But maybe not as many as you think, at least not if lawyers screened their cases carefully.
Opponents of tort reform make that argument about insurance companies, too. I’ve dealt with lots of insurance companies, and I’m not crazy about them. But I think your argument about denying every claim is overblown. Claims that are made and suits that are filed have to be defended. That’s not going to change. Meritorious cases will be settled; frivolous and less meritorious cases defended.
Good example of ht health care is so expensive!
Suing someone is guaranteed by the 7th amendment.
What reform would you like? A new law that prevents the landowner from asking the court, preemptively, to rule that she has no liability? That is all that has happened here.
No lawsuit has been filed, no claim made or paid. A notice of claim was received only because Maine law starts the theoretical accumulation of interest on any future judgment on the date of Notice, not filing.
So now that you have taken a breath and, I hope, thought beyond your bumper sticker sloganeering post, what necessary reform do these facts suggest to you?
Just the idea of this possible lawsuit is wrong in so many ways!!!!
Yeah, and this is number one;
Given the facts; ” On Sunday, June 19, the day the newlyweds planned to return home, Eric got up early and donned shorts and a life jacket but no shirt and paddled out into Frenchman Bay. Hours later, after wind gusts of 30 mph and water temperatures between 55 and 60 degrees prevented him from returning to shore, the 28-year-old doctoral student was found dead, floating in the water off the Bar Harbor village of Hulls Cove.’
Ms. Sarah Kellogg Hogan, if you had seen what he was planning to do,
would you have told him that Frenchman’s Bay it not a lake, and stopped him from going out on it in a float toy ?
If so, and of course you would have, how you could think of suing your landlord ?
:_}
That is harsher than my point, and I don’t like the insensitive blame game you have build upon my thoughts.
It is your right, though.
But it is also mine to say I don’t approve, too, thank you.
sorry , i wasnt intending to be part of your thoughts …it should have been posted at the top sorry agai
OK
Maybe his widow should sue late husband’s family for not teaching him the common sense to not go out on the ocean when not prepared. The only people to gain from this type of frivolous lawsuits are lawyers who end up with the money.
I could not agree more, I was an avid boater of all kinds. I was taught early on that the weather and many other factors could cause unsavory conditions on the water. And I always kayaked in groups, mostly because I did white water kayaking, but the point is too many people think its not dangerous when it can be.
“Frivolous” lawsuits don’t result in Judgments. Trials before a jury (people just like you) where a plaintiff actually proves a claim with evidence or a settlement agreement between the parties are the only way that occurs. Plaintiff’s lawyers only collect a portion of the judgment actually paid by the defendant, usually 1/3 so clearly they don’t “end up with the money” as you state. If you have ever delft with a claim to an insurance company you should understand that they don’t pay “frivolous”claims.
You did note that there is no suit filed filed here, “frivolous” or otherwise, didn’t you? Bell is attempting to preemptively have a court declare that no theory of liability exists upon which one could be brought.
You’re making too much sense. People here don’t respond well to sense, they’d rather just indulge their emotions.
Well explained paytreot, but I have to disagree. In this modern day, litigation hungry society, I can’t agree that a trial by jury of peers won’t or can’t result in judgments based on frivolous claims. It has raised the costs of goods and services and brought businesses and personal risk for the common (and personal) good to their knees. When it comes to the application of laws and liabilities, just because you can doesn’t mean you should … meaning it often becomes a dangerous and expensive contest of lawyers for often not the best of reasons. Examples? There are probably thousands upon thousands. I’m not a lawyer, but the evidence is everywhere. McDonalds and the hot cup of coffee, the additional dollars added to the cost of almost any internal combustion device, especially used for transportation (yes, there have been cases with merit as well (rear mounted gas tanks, etc), the termination of a friends business due to the cost of insurance because of the risk of guiding kayakers, etc. etc. I think the actions of self-serving attorneys and frivolous law suits have helped to stifle ingenuity, entrepreneurism, and the healthy kind of risk in this country.
Than who do you suggest decide what is “frivolous” other than a jury that has heard all the evidence (not just read the BDN) and been instructed by the court as to the law? Of course that’s only AFTER the court itself has decided that there are facts in dispute that, if believed by a jury, could result in liability.
By the way the infamous McDonald’s case was approved by the court, decided by a jury and upheld on appeal. The plaintiff was an elderly woman who was so severely burned that her genital area required plastic surgery. Or don’t you believe that a liquid can actually be too hot for safe distribution to the general public for immediate consumption? See: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm and http://www.slip-and-sue.com/the-famous-infamous-mcdonalds-coff for the actual record of the case.
There is often (always) far more to legal issues in dispute than contained in a headline. So again, I ask: Who is it that you want to have the responsibility of hearing the evidence and determining what is “frivolous” if not a jury and Judge?
It’s called dialing for dollars. Have your lawyer sue absolutely everyone remotely connected to the accident take the settlement offers and call it good for a days work.
What’s next ?
Whitney Houston’s family suing the hotel? Or the Grammy? Or the party sponsor – heck she wouldn’t be there if there wasn’t a party..
Most people who have accidents due so on their time off or vacation , this spells the end to Vacationland. Time to lock up lawyers and let the cons run wild.
My Grandfather had a saying ……………. If you enjoy the pleasures, you accept the liabilities.
Sadly, we have become a society that sues at a drop of the hat and as pointed out by a couple of the post the only real winner ……………………. is the Attorneys.
if he had been killed “on” the property due to negligence in the care and safety of the property, then yes. but taking a kayak out, absolutely NOT. this shouldn’t even go to court it should be thrown out! she needs to ask herself, is this what her husband would want? this property owner is absolutely not responsible. i can’t even believe this.. no wait, yes i can….
And people wonder why we say NO to them using the kayaks at our rental properties. This is exactly why. There’s always some sue happy person out there who wants to toss their irresponsibilities onto someone else
Yes I think you speak for everyone here, I mean who DOESN’T have the money to own a rental property? lol
The problem is, if a suit is filed, the property owner will have to defend in court… it is going to cost her, even if the case does eventually get tossed. She may offer some sort of settlement early, in order to avoid a costly and lengthy entanglement.
The claim ISN’T going to court. No civil action has been filed by the widow. It’s the property owner who is seeking a decision from the court declaring that she doesn’t have any liability. Do you mean she shouldn’t be able to do that?
I was seriously considering becoming a lawyer, but I do not want an occupation that’s so heavily contributing to society’s degradation. I guess I’m not enough of a scumbag.
You know the difference between a lawyer, and sculpin? One is a bottom dwelling scum sucker, and the other is a fish.
When I read stories like this, I agree with you, and I’m a lawyer (retired).
Rachel you sound like the kind of lawyer we should have.
Massachusetts is the most educated state in the USA. Not everyone there is a greedy lawyer, and they all have better health care than the average Mainer.
What does this have to do with the Price of tea in China???? Really what does someones education or health care status have to do with having no common sense and then wanting to sue someone.
I guess these people don’t know the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
That doesn’t mean someone from Mass. wouldn’t try to make some money now does it. But putting that aside, the lawsuit would be ridiculous, when an adult gets into a watercraft on their own they are taking a calculated risk unto themselves.
What is your point? I have a kayak and I let my friends use it. Does that mean I could get sued if they died while using it?
Keep an eye on this case…..if she loses then yes….this could be bad for Maine 8(
Could be bad for any state where someone rents out a property and has anything a person can use that might cause an accident. Say hello to vacation rentals with nothing inside or out.
The most corrupt state in the USA more like. Just because the place is crawling with Ph.D.s doesn’t mean there’s a lot of common sense floating around.
I know you don’t like folks with all that fancy book-learning but Massachusetts also has a high percentage of Rednecks.
And just because someone lives north of the volvo lines doesn’t give them a lock on common sense and integrity.
A Kellogg… in Sorrento , is not Maine enough, how ?
I was referring to the previous commenter who was lamenting the high rate of PhDs in Mass.
Sorrento, a lovely peninsula where my mom lives.
And traditionally where the Kellogg family summers, too, right ?
i don’t know
They seem to like lady killers like Teddy Kennedy…
Why do they move here then?
Haha! Love it!!
And your point?
Thanks for sharing, but I bet no one from Maine really cares! We know the truth…
If they were that educated, they wouldn’t be working at Tim Hortons…
https://www.facebook.com/people/Rachel-Huntress/100003594583409
And the term “educated fool” comes immediately to mind. Sorry, you asked for it.
My daughter lives in MA. She doesn’t have better health care but she is forced to buy health insurance she doesn’t need.
Massachusetts is a cess pool compared to Maine.
very educated , but once they aquire it, they hang thier common sence on a hook , like a old coat and walk away
deep scumbags – this is the problem with everything from police to underage drinking yo laws to this – trying to put blame on someone else for you own choices
If there had been something wrong with that kayak, like split in the middle, that would change the deal but this was inexperience and nothing more. If property owners were smart they would not provide boats in the rental just for reasons such as this. Too bad the property owner has to go through this on top of dealing with the sadness of the young man’s death.
You can not protect people from themselves . the man made a great mistake he paid for it with his life. No one to blame. Respect the ocean please. What was he thinking going out with high winds? I guess he was not thinking.
Then you can blame him, and him alone.
I agree . Sorry for his loss. But if someone borrows my car and get into a wreck and was speeding it is not my fault unless I knew something was wrong with it. Maybe the law will not see it that way. That is the was I see it. High wind should have told the man something he was educated . Not like I gave a boat to a 10 year old and told him to go out on his own.
A lawsuit would be incredible to even think of in a case like this, in my opinion. The owner of the cottage, in no way caused this man’s death as tragic, as it is. I am sorry for this man’s widow, if was a terrible thing to happen.
I can imagine some immediate consequence’s of the notice of claim. If the owner of the rental cabin doesn’t stop renting her property, she’ll prepare a rental agreement that includes a waiver and release of liability and an indemnification agreement to be signed by the renter; she’ll double the rent; she won’t have any more kayaks or watercraft of any kind at the property. Then other shorefront rental property owners will follow suit, and eventually there won’t be any summer property available for rent on MDI.
Thank you Mrs. Hogan. I’m sorry for your loss.
Waivers are smoke screens…
Stories like this remind of those old lawyer jokes… Like, what do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea… A good start!!! Or this one what difference would you see between a lawyer and a skunk dead in the road… There is skid marks in front of the skunk!!!
Sorry. The kayaker’s death is the result of bad choices and decisions he made. My condolences to the family, but the owner of the home and kayak is no more liable than the owner(s) of a road on which you may have an accident unless the condition of the road contributed to the accident. Even then, you’re required to be aware of road conditions before traveling.
Scarey, the system is phooyeeeeeeeee…. He was dumb enough to go out, his fault…..
Personal Responsibility. Yes it was tragic for everyone involved, but its certainly not the property owners fault this guy failed to prepare for his voyage. Like others have said, perhaps if there were a defect in the kayak there MIGHT be a case, even then it would be a long shot given weather conditions.
This is just going to make it harder for everyone else to rent canoes/kayaks this summer, especially if the suit goes through.
What kind of nonsense are your implying LazyMainer?
I think the lawyer should look at a lawsuit against the man’s parents for allowing him to be this stupid.
Has a couple friends come down from Canada and a neighbor; whom I didn’t even know; lent them his kayaks so they could enjoy the harbor. Things like this put a kybosh to loaning anyone anything. SAD!!! :(
This would be one of the suits that should be required to pay all fees If they lose. Nothing here indicates any wrong doing on the owners part.
what has our world come? suing someone because your husband rode the short bus when it comes to personal safety while out on the ocean.
Wow, if they decide to file a lawsuit, I have a lot of comments to make. I think I will wait until then,,,,,
I bet that she wont leave any kayaks at the camp this year! I wouldnt anyway this is absurd to even think of suing the owner for this, but you never know what people will think to try to do now adays!
Hope they can get a toxicology report.
Lawyers and the fear of lawsuits rule the entire world.
Kind of sad, really.
Stupidity can not be blamed on the person who rented the place.
With responsibility comes liability. To most of us this is a no brainer, the landlord shouldn’t be responsible for someone elses bad planning. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20, did he sign a Free from liability contract?
Was the kayak in some way defective?
Another question… suppose you fell asleep in the bathtub and drowned… would the landlord be liable?
sleep kayaking, with a little help in his system???? NO shirt, that doesn’t seem rational….DROP THE IFNORANT LAW SUIT INTENTIONS!!! BECAUSE HE WAS EDUCATED, THAT DID NOT NECESSAERILY MAKE HIM SMART! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!
Knowledge is knowing that a tomatoe is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing enough to not put it on a fruit salad.
ever meet a phD that couldn’t hammer a nail?
If I am on the jury; you will get nothing . Natural selection has tightened it belt. Respect our Maine or pay the price.
I was saddened when I first heard of this tragic drowning last year and will be saddened again if this lawsuit actually happens. We all should be responsible for our own actions, wise or foolish.
People have to be responsible for their own actions. The end results of the kayak ride was indeed tragic, but a woman 3000 miles away should not be liable for their actions while they rented her cabin.
What a waste of ink! The story has NO MERIT AT ALL. Sue God for the weather!
Personal responsibility is in order here!
Suppose he had jumped off a cliff with this kayak and fell 200ft to his death. Would we expect the bride to sue the property owner because the kayak wasn’t equipped with wings? No one can exercise a man’s rational judgement for him.
We need to require a week-long course in renting in Maine. It should cover hiking, mt. climbing, weather, differences between ocean and lake use, driving, ticks, wild animals, respecting other people’s property (and yourself) and distinguishing between activities best enjoyed alone and those best done in a group. The prospective renter will, of course, be required to stay on campus for the week and pass a written and practical test before being issued a “Qualified To Enjoy Maine” certificate. I am sure this will be really good for Maine seasonal businesses and help to keep. em”Open for business.” :-)
People, the article pretty clearly said there wasn’t actually a lawsuit. Her husband of only three weeks just died. Maybe the poor woman was distraught and life insurance requires some sort of claim. Stop overreacting when you don’t know what is actually happening
What kind of life insurance requires a beneficiary to file a notice of claim against a third party who might be responsible for the death of the person insured under the life policy? If there is such a life insurance policy it could only be because the life insurer had subrogation rights, and I’ve never heard of that in a life policy.
Thank you lawyers and Democrats. I can’t wait to go camping next year only to be told that I can no longer use a canoe. This has become the new liberal mantra: Someone else is always responsible.
And someone who’s hurt is always a “victim” who has to be paid.
And to you liberals are always responsible, so how is that different?
Also, give an example of this being the fault of liberals, if you can.
It is sad that this man lost his life for whatever reason and I do feel badly for his wife, my condo-lenses to her.
There does come a time when we all must take responsibility for our actions. ……….. this is one of those times, without question.
For the widow to try and place the blame on others is wrong, it was her late husbands’ decision, and his only; to do what he did.
Uncle. Uncle. Enough.
Maybe the parents of this man should sue the wife for not stopping him from going out.
It’s getting to a point that all people think about is suing for whatever. They could go all the way back to suing the kayak manufacturer, at the way things are going. If one rents a cottage and see that it is unsafe all they have to do is not rent.
When a flatlander asks, “how do you turn that on?” don’t leave your chain saw at you rental camp either.
old enough to get married…. old enough to make his own decisions…… the home owner had nothing to do with this… very sad case but come – on, really, suing the home owner?? I got in a car accident, should i sue the dealership?
>>>>
I have lived on the water my entire life but never, ever take this force of nature lightly!! Conditions can change in a heart beat. 2 years ago a life jacket saved my life. It was a new ocean kayak and I screwed up. Very hgh, fast rapids and I got wedged in large rocks. The current was sucking me under but that life jacket bounced me right back up again, numerous times. 5 minutes before, my husband re-fastened/adjusted it. Smart guy. I never kayak or canoe without one! Maybe owners of camp grounds and loaners of watercraft need to have users sign a waiver in case of injury. Can’t believe the widow would have any case here. But, very sad, regardless.
its sarahs fault , she removed his leash so he could go play ……
He should have been more careful. I’m sorry for everyone involved, but the conditions should have been checked and accounted for. I think it’s his fault.