Observing the way different vessels move through the water can be interesting. A 20-foot Flying Dutchman on a downwind reach at 8 knots seems to fly across wave tops with little more than a quiet “swoosh” to mark its tracks. In contrast, a 20-foot club tender making six knots generates a fan of wave crests and troughs that could serve as a textbook study of ship resistance for naval architecture students at Webb Institute.
The hydrodynamic disturbances generated by vessels in motion, whether a flat-bottom John Dory skimming across the surface like a hydroplaning tire or a Grand Banks 42 bulldozing its way like a harbor tug are a function of various factors. These include hull form, speed, water depth, and sea conditions. However, while vessels may differ in how their hulls separate the water, a common denominator for all settings is that a vessel operator could be legally responsible for damage caused by their wake. This was illustrated by a recent case heard in a federal district court in Arizona, where a boater sustained injury from the wake of a tour boat.
The incident occurred in September 2019 on Lake Powell in Arizona, near Navajo Canyon. A husband and wife were operating their 29-foot powerboat with guests aboard. Other members of the family were following on jet skis. As the powerboat approached the right-hand turn into the canyon, a 76-foot tour boat rounded the left turn to exit the canyon. This placed the two vessels moving on opposite headings, with the larger vessel passing on the port side of the smaller vessel.
The wake from the larger vessel caused the bow of the smaller vessel to rise and come crashing down. This resulted in the wife sustaining fractures in her T-11 and T-12 vertebrae. She was airlifted to a hospital in St. George, Utah. The smaller powerboat’s owners alleged that they were on the far-right side of the channel and that the larger vessel was not properly positioned. They argued that the tour boat was negligently operated. They also argued that the tour boat’s owners were aware of their vessel’s wakes and that punitive damages were warranted.
The tour boat operators argued that the smaller vessel was negligently operated. Negligence, claimed by both vessel operators here, is the same in maritime law as it is in land-based situations involving motor vehicle accidents. The legal elements are as follows: (1) a duty of reasonable care on the part of the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) damages, and (4) causation (the “connection” between the breach of duty and ensuing damages), cited by the court here from Samuels v. Holland Am. Line-USA, Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 2011).
The court reviewed the positions, headings, and speeds of both vessels and visited the inland navigational rules. It also reviewed Arizona law, which requires that “No person shall operate a watercraft in excess of the posted limit or at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event, speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or other watercraft, swamping other watercraft, or otherwise endangering the lives or property of other persons. A.R.S. § 5-343 (2012).”
Further, Utah law holds that “the operator of a motorboat is responsible for any damage or injury caused by the wake produced by the operator’s motorboat.” After listening to accounts of both sides and the opinions of experts, the court delivered a decision of 50-50 on liability, in other words, half the blame to the smaller vessel and half to the larger vessel. This resulted in the plaintiff’s medical bills being covered at 50%, reduced from $70,746.99 to $35,373.50. The court granted punitive damages after concluding the tour boat operators were aware of the large wakes their vessels generated on Lake Powell.
When it comes to boat wakes, faster is not always more destructive. Sometimes a vessel can generate a very destructive wake in transitioning from low speed to planning speed. Once up on a plane, the resulting wake can often be small.
Ref: Meador v. Aramark Sports & Ent. Servs., No. CV-19-08345-PCT-JJT, United States District Court for the District of Arizona