Kevin O’Leary involved in fatal boat crash this past weekend.

[sirmike68]

The other guy admitted he was out there star gazing with the lights off. Even if you're sober or had a drink how can you expect to be at fault hitting another boat in the blackness of night in the middle of the lake. The only guy at fault is the idiot with his lights turned off!

[270person]

Originally Posted by sirmike68

The other guy admitted he was out there star gazing with the lights off. Even if you're sober or had a drink how can you expect to be at fault hitting another boat in the blackness of night in the middle of the lake. The only guy at fault is the idiot with his lights turned off!

If you're impaired all bets are off. Automatic guilty. Haven't been paying attn much so no idea if they made her blow.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by 270person

If you're impaired all bets are off. Automatic guilty. Haven't been paying attn much so no idea if they made her blow.

Well… supposedly she was a DD and doesn’t drink much, but had a stiff drink given to her AFTER the crash, so it’s hard to prove if she was impaired during the crash.

I agree, if you are on a lake with no lights on, you should be at fault…

LC

[Freedom55]

Millionaire tourists from the U.S. duking it out on a Canadian lake asking the Ontario police to pick a side for their pending civil suits. WGAF. O'Leary's boathouse is worth more than most homes.

Free

[Big Grey Wolf]

Some one?? gave her a vodka after the crash. Famous way to dilute down the imparied.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I see boats anchored offshore all the time. No lighting required. (At least not enforced anyway...) think the onus is on the boat in motion.

Originally Posted by The Elkster

I believe it is the law for any boat on the water whether moving or not to have a light displayed at night. I believe if at anchor the color of light is suppose to be different as well to indicate such. Not sure if lake rules are the same as marine rules however laws of self preservation says light yourself up ya idiot.

Always learning something on AO.

Transport Canada says vessels that are at anchor and are less than 50 metres long must exhibit, depending on the time of day and visibility, an all-round white light or one ball where it can best be seen.

Vessels less than 7 metres long are not required to exhibit anchor lights or shapes when anchored – unless in or near a narrow channel, fairway or anchorage, or where other vessels normally pass.

I had thought that anchor lights were mandatory for all but I was wrong.

Originally Posted by Talking moose

What’s “underway@?
Thought he was stationary...

If she's not anchored, aground or tied up, she's underway.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I also know from spending many nights at sea, off the BC coast. Spotting boat lights against a lighted shoreline can be next to impossible.

I haven't had a lot of nights on the water, but off the BC coast it is impossible and the situation is not much better in cottage country.

Originally Posted by Map Maker

Yeah. If I haven’t been drinking and been in a crash. First thing I would do is have a drink.
Insulting.

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Some one?? gave her a vodka after the crash. Famous way to dilute down the imparied.

I agree with Grey Wolf. A few years ago there were reliable reports of a police officer here being in a vehicle collision with a parked car. In front of witnesses, he was reported to have said, "I need a drink." He took a bottle of booze out of the trunk and downed a few swallows. Got him off the hook and we'll never know if he was driving under the influence or not.

[Positrac]

Linda O'Leary found not guilty in connection to fatal Ontario boat crash

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/linda-o-l...rash-1.5584471

TORONTO -- Linda O’Leary has been found not guilty in connection to a boat crash that killed two people in central Ontario two years ago.

O'Leary, the wife of celebrity businessman Kevin O'Leary, was found not guilty of one charge of careless operation of a vessel under the Canada Shipping Act.

The verdict was delivered this morning in a hearing in Parry Sound, Ont., that was also livestreamed.

Linda O'Leary told host of dinner party she was designated driver before fatal crash, court hears
Guests tell court they didn't see Linda O'Leary drink after fatal boat crash
Linda O'Leary had 'alert range' of blood alcohol after fatal boat crash, officer testifies
Linda O'Leary was at the helm when the boat collided with another vessel on Aug. 24, 2019, on Lake Joseph, north of Toronto.

The couple and a family friend were returning to their cottage from a dinner party at another cottage when the incident took place.

Two people on the other boat -- Gary Poltash, 64, of Florida, and Suzana Brito, 48, from Uxbridge, Ont. -- died from their injuries. Three others were also hurt.

O'Leary's defence lawyer, Brian Greenspan, had argued his client should be cleared because there is evidence the other boat's lights were off at the time of the incident, rendering it essentially "invisible."

Justice Richard Humphrey said Tuesday during his decision that he found the other boat did not have its navigational lights on at the time of the crash so that the passengers could stargaze.

While reading the verdict, Humphrey also said he rejected suggestions that O’Leary was impaired by alcohol at the time of the crash.

A police officer told the court during trial that O'Leary registered an "alert range" blood alcohol level in a breath test shortly after the crash.

The officer testified that O'Leary told her she had only had one drink but it was after the crash.

The judge also said there is not enough evidence to determine what speed O'Leary was travelling when the crash occured, or what speed would have been appropriate.

[Sundog57]

Out in the real world it works like this... (My highlights)
From the Collision Regulations 1972 (applied world wide)
Responsibility:
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Safe Speed — International

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
(i) the state of visibility, (that includes "dark")
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels,
(iii) the manoeuvrability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions,
(iv) at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter of her own lights,
(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards,
(vi) the draught in relation to the available depth of water.

So....
Belting along in the dark with no radar pretty much precludes operating at a "Safe Speed" no matter what the other people were doing.
And yes most pleasure boats don't have radar
So...
The obvious answer is - gasp - slow down

I would have called it criminal negligence causing death

[Trochu]

I guess if I was stopped, in the middle of the road, at night, with my lights off to star gaze, I'd have a hard time blaming the other party if someone hit me.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I guess if I was stopped, in the middle of the road, at night, with my lights off to star gaze, I'd have a hard time blaming the other party if someone hit me.

And cover your console to minimize glare etc.....sad thing is people died.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I guess if I was stopped, in the middle of the road, at night, with my lights off to star gaze, I'd have a hard time blaming the other party if someone hit me.

And yet some people install dark covers over their taillights that make them hard for traffic following them to see. The same fools drive around in the dark with dark covers over their headlights so they can't see obstructions on the road.

[Ken07AOVette]

Now the Civil suits might start. He likely won't get out of that.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Now the Civil suits might start. He likely won't get out of that.

Then again he might, having the resources to hire the best legal team often goes a long ways.

[Freedom55]

OPP testified that their conclusions were that when cruising at 20 mph the anchored, unlit vessel was very difficult to see up until the last moment but being aware of the proximity they were able to avoid collision. Subsequent testing resulted in a slightly greater degree of visibility at 5 mph but collision was not easily avoided.

In my experience 20 mph is not fast if, as the accused has demonstrated, the driver remains acutely aware of the circumstances, knows the route and no one parks a large boat in the travel lane. Likely the end of any talk of a civil suit.

Free

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Then again he might, having the resources to hire the best legal team often goes a long ways.

Ever see the ads on TV for ambulance chasing lawyers that go after things like this? Some of them are HUGE lawfirms, and you can bet ALL of them have been just waiting for an opportunity like this.

WHen it all boils down, there was a wrongful death, we do not know how it played out exactly, but there are likely going to be some very nice suited Lawyers visiting the families of the deceased, pro-bono and committing for commission.

See how it plays out I guess.

[Positrac]

The owner of the boat that was at rest with its light out could be in for a world of hurt once lawyers for the families of the deceased realize he is the only one they have any hope of getting anything out of in the form of a civil settlement.

The O’Leary’s have very deep pockets and a judgement of not guilty in connection with the accident against Linda so I can’t see any lawyer taking a civil case on for a commission and going after them.

What will be interesting will be whether the O’Learys go after a civil case against the other boat owner.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Positrac

The owner of the boat that was at rest with its light out could be in for a world of hurt once lawyers for the families of the deceased realize he is the only one they have any hope of getting anything out of in the form of a civil settlement.

The O’Leary’s have very deep pockets and a judgement of not guilty in connection with the accident against Linda so I can’t see any lawyer taking a civil case on for a commission and going after them.

What will be interesting will be whether the O’Learys go after a civil case against the other boat owner.

I agree, the owner/operator of the boat with no lights on, could end up being the one paying, if civil litigation is initiated. If Oleary get's sued, he sues the boat owner, and the boat owner ends up the big loser. As for ambulance chaser lawyers taking on Oleary for a commission, they would have to feel that they can't lose, because it could be a long ,drawn out, expensive battle.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I agree, the owner/operator of the boat with no lights on, could end up being the one paying, if civil litigation is initiated. If Oleary get's sued, he sues the boat owner, and the boat owner ends up the big loser. As for ambulance chaser lawyers taking on Oleary for a commission, they would have to feel that they can't lose, because it could be a long ,drawn out, expensive battle.

Not only that, but last I knew this was not the US. As far as I know, in Canada, all one can sue for is provable monitory loss.

Of course I am not a legal expert, still, different country different laws.

I don't see Canadian lawyers advertising that they can win you big money, or advertising at all.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I agree, the owner/operator of the boat with no lights on, could end up being the one paying, if civil litigation is initiated. If Oleary get's sued, he sues the boat owner, and the boat owner ends up the big loser. As for ambulance chaser lawyers taking on Oleary for a commission, they would have to feel that they can't lose, because it could be a long ,drawn out, expensive battle.

😄
Do you not know how Lawyers work?
They hope for long drawn out expensive battles.
They charge by the hour!

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

😄
Do you not know how Lawyers work?
They hope for long drawn out expensive battles.
They charge by the hour!

He does, that's why he said "As for ambulance chaser lawyers taking on Oleary for a commission, they would have to feel that they can't lose", because it would be crazy expensive.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

😄
Do you not know how Lawyers work?
They hope for long drawn out expensive battles.
They charge by the hour!

But if they take a case on commission, they only get paid if they win, if they lose, it costs them a great deal, because they could have been on other cases they were being paid for. To take a long drawn out case on commission, they need to be quite certain they will win. And this isn't the USA, the chance of huge payouts is much lower.

[Ken07AOVette]

When something like this is filed chances are it will never see a courthouse. It will make such a stir that there will be a settlement reached long before pretrial.

Ever wonder why the public doesn't hear a lot about these cases?

Money buys silence.

[WV911]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Not only that, but last I knew this was not the US. As far as I know, in Canada, all one can sue for is provable monitory loss.

Of course I am not a legal expert, still, different country different laws.

I don't see Canadian lawyers advertising that they can win you big money, or advertising at all.

Look up Diamond and Diamond Lawyers, they advertise just that all the time