Comments on: “Katrina rescuer is sued by boat owner”

By: unCivil Law

unCivil Law — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:54:25 +0000

I live in our sole civil law state (LA), and to me it sounds like the only thing this guy’s guilty of is not greasing the proper palms.

My favorite part of the story, though, was Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendant should at least have left a note. To this, Defendant said something like, “the next time there’s a natural disaster, I’ll remember to bring pen and paper.” Ha!

By: Insomniac

Insomniac — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:03:28 +0000

Things may be different in nawlins, but I vaguely remember from torts class that a cause of action for trespass to chattel will not lie when it occurs as a result of an emergency. I could be remembering that incorrectly, of course…and since LA is a civil code state, it might not apply anyway.

By: nevins

nevins — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:55:33 +0000

I never fail to be amazed at the language chosen by lawyers to describe an alleged injury. In this case ’embarrassment’; what’s that all about. just how the heck could the boat’s owner suffer embarrassment in this incident. Are people so stupid that they cannot recognize their own 15 minutes of fame; he failed to seize the opportunity for some camera time, to state how proud he was that it was his boat that saved all of those lives, that he’d volunteer his boat again in a heartbeat, etc. etc. He can retrospectively claim credit as a good guy even when down deep he might be a dirty scoundrel who would never lift a finger to help a drowning man, and would never have prospectively offered his boat. The man has the opportunity to look like a caring human being thrust upon him and he rejects it.