Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Who's to blame?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Where else but TX
    Posts
    62
    Images
    2

    Who's to blame?

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...by-4453796.php

    Not sure who's at fault here. At what point does an accident become punishable by law?

  2. #2
    Surfer pays. At first I was thinking one takes a risk just by entering the water to either swim or surf... but when it says the board was not attached via surfboard leash... Surfer pays up.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by MFitz73 View Post
    Surfer pays. At first I was thinking one takes a risk just by entering the water to either swim or surf... but when it says the board was not attached via surfboard leash... Surfer pays up.
    I have to agree unless, it is a surfing only zone. Why couldn't the lady get out of the way.... thats my question

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Where else but TX
    Posts
    62
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MFitz73 View Post
    Surfer pays. At first I was thinking one takes a risk just by entering the water to either swim or surf... but when it says the board was not attached via surfboard leash... Surfer pays up.
    My exact thought was everyone is taking some amount of risk entering the water and has to assume individual responsibility. Probably going to find negligence for surfing without a leash in a populated spot.

    Wonder what would happen if he had a leash and it broke? Sue the company that makes the leash as well?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by TX Shreddin View Post
    My exact thought was everyone is taking some amount of risk entering the water and has to assume individual responsibility. Probably going to find negligence for surfing without a leash in a populated spot.

    Wonder what would happen if he had a leash and it broke? Sue the company that makes the leash as well?
    Im pretty sure it says on the leash packaging that the company assumes no risk and makes no guarantees and is provided as a convenience accessory only.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    10,101
    No leash = you lose every time

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In a state of flux
    Posts
    4,410
    if a surf-only zone then the lady. if not then the surfer.

  8. #8
    I do remember reading a thread on here where a vacationing SUPer dropped in on a local and dinged his face and then went to the hospital with him and paid for his damages. I do wonder though as to where she was swimming though.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Where else but TX
    Posts
    62
    Images
    2
    Your right on Fitz.

    Surfing is a HAZARDOUS sport. The use of your surf board with a leash that is properly attached according to instructions found at www.npsurf.com is done at your own risk. The suppliers of this product are not responsible for any property damage or personal injury caused by any use, misuse, abuse or irresponsible use of this product.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Monmouth Beach, NJ
    Posts
    3,824
    Quote Originally Posted by TX Shreddin View Post
    Surfing is a HAZARDOUS sport.
    No it's not... at least not officially, (according to one lawyer I spoke with on this subject) like skiing or skydiving, which are "inherently dangerous." I'm no lawyer, but I do know for a fact that designation carries with it a lot of weight. For example, it's one reason why we don't have hard structure artificial reefs. There's a serious consideration regarding liability. If surfing was "inherently dangerous," there would be no such consideration. If a municipality builds a seawall, it assumes responsibility for someone falling off it, so it has to build a railing. If a municipality builds an artificial reef, there's no way to protect people from hitting it or getting stuck in it and drowning. It seems to me this issue could be avoided if surfing WAS designated as inherently dangerous. But that's a whole other legal battle, and because surfing is, in all reality, a fairly safe activity, who's benefits outweigh the risks, and who's associated injuries are relatively minor, that designation is unlikely.
    Last edited by LBCrew; Apr 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM.