$______ RECOVERY - BOATING NEGLIGENCE - DANGEROUS LOCATION OF BOATING BUOYS NEAR SWIMMING BEACH - NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF BOAT - BOAT/SWIMMER COLLISION - WRONGFUL DEATH AT AGE 57.

Pages6-6
$3,750,000 RECOVERY – BOATING NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS LOCATION OF
BOATING BUOYS NEAR SWIMMING BEACH – NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF BOAT –
BOAT/SWIMMER COLLISION – WRONGFUL DEATH AT AGE 57.
(Withheld) County, FL
This action arose in March, 2020, when the 57-
year-old decedent was struck and killed by a
power boat while swimming off a public beach.
The defendants in the case included the operator
of the boat which struck the decedent as well as a
water sports company which operated a
beachfront rental company nearby.
The boater that struck the decedent was not affiliated
with, nor rented from the defendant water sports
company. However, the plaintiff alleged that the wa-
ter sports company failed to set its buoys a safe dis-
tance from shore, which drew the passing boater
closer to shore. Thus, the plaintiff contended that the
striking boater was in closer proximity to the swim area
than he otherwise would have been while traveling at
a high rate of speed had the buoys not been placed
in such location.
The evidence established that the defendant water
sports company used its buoys to form a “vessel corri-
dor” for its vessels, including wave runner rentals, to
travel back and forth to the beach. The two buoys in
question, which were set equal distance from the
shoreline, were also used to demarcate the distance
from shore at which the wave runners could acceler-
ate above idle speed, according to the defense. The
plaintiff was able to show, using the boater’s GPS
data, that on the date of the incident the buoys
(which were near where the collision occurred) were
closer to shore than local ordinances permitted
boaters to travel at above idle speed.
Following the collision, the decedent was airlifted to a
hospital but succumbed to his injuries a few hours af-
ter arrival. He was employed as a business executive
and survived by his wife. The decedent’s wife was at
the beach with him and witnessed the collision.
The plaintiff claimed medical damages of $122,558
and total economic damages in the range of
$2,434,694 to $3,474,996 including loss of support,
loss of services and loss of net accumulations to the
estate.
Prior to any lawsuit being filed, the case settled
against the boater for $500,000 which was the en-
tirety of his available insurance policy limits. A lawsuit
was then filed against the defendant water sports
company which settled (with confidentiality as to its
identity) for $3,250,000, for a total recovery of
$3,750,000.
REFERENCE
Estate of John Doe vs. ABC Company. Case no. n/a;
Judge n/a, 10-29-21.
Attorneys for plaintiff: Michael A. Haggard and Pedro
P. Echarte, III of The Haggard Law Firm in Coral
Gables, FL.
COMMENTARY
Plaintiff’s counsel was able to maximize recovery in this tragic
wrongful death action by settling with the striking boater for avail-
able policy limits and then filing suit against a water sports com-
pany which set the buoys near the accident site.
The plaintiff contended that the presence of the buoys, coupled
with the fact that the defendant water sports company’s customers
routinely accelerated as they passed the buoys, confused the strik-
ing boater and drew him closer to shore than he otherwise would
have been. The plaintiff also discovered damaging evidence that
the buoys were closer to shore than local ordinances permitted
boaters to travel at above idle speed. Thus, the plaintiff successfully
established that buoys were a substantial factor in causing the
striking boater to enter into the public area where the decedent
was swimming, thereby resulting in the fatal collision.
$3,164,000 VERDICT – DRAM SHOP – DEFENDANT INTOXICATED DRIVER CAUSES
HEAD ON COLLISION AFTER CONSUMING ALCOHOL ILLEGALLY OBTAINED FROM
DEFENDANT CONVENIENCE STORE – MULTIPLE ORTHOPEDIC INJURIES INCLUDING
BILATERAL LEG FRACTURES – MULTIPLE SURGICAL PROCEDURES.
Charleston County, SC
The plaintiff in this negligence action sustained
multiple orthopedic injuries including fractures to
both legs and a broken wrist when his vehicle was
struck head-on by the 19-year-old defendant
driver who was operating a vehicle under the
influence of alcohol. The defendant drivers’
underage friend had purchased the alcohol for
himself and the defendant driver which they
consumed in the defendant convenience store
parking lot. The plaintiff sued both the defendant
driver and the defendant convenience store. Both
defendants generally denied all allegations of
negligence and injury.
On October 19, 2017, the 24-year-old male plaintiff
was driving to work southbound on SC-41 in
Charleston County, South Carolina. At the same time
and place, the defendant Watts was traveling north-
bound on SC-41, under the influence of alcohol ille-
gally sold by the defendant convenience store.
Suddenly and without warning, the defendant’s vehi-
cle crossed the center line and struck the plaintiffs ve-
6 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS
Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2022 Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT