Katrina rescuer is sued by boat owner

[PopCulturePooka]

A Broadmoor man who said he rescued more than 200 residents after commandeering a boat during the flood after Hurricane Katrina is being sued by the boat's owner for taking it "without receiving permission."

Mark Morice, who by the Wednesday after the storm said he "couldn't get more than a block or two without people screaming to me for help," took the boat "out of necessity. . . . I did it for my neighbors."

Among them was Irving Gordon, a 93-year-old dialysis patient who Morice carried from his flooded home, placed in the boat and rescued from distress.

"I don't know where we would be today if it weren't for him," Molly Gordon, Gordon's wife of 65 years, said Friday.

The lawsuit contends that boat owner John M. Lyons Jr. suffered his own distress, in the form of "grief, mental anguish, embarrassment and suffering . . . due to the removal of the boat," as well as its replacement costs.

E. Ronald Mills, Lyons' Metairie lawyer, who filed the suit in 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish earlier this month, on Friday accused Morice of "hubris."

Morice made no attempt to return the boat, Mills said, and it remains missing.

'Living in fear'

The Friday after the storm, Morice said, he left the city briefly to recover from a week of trolling the city's streets, "living in fear and sleeping with a shotgun." That day, after delivering 15 people to dry ground on Claiborne Avenue near the Orleans-Jefferson parish line, Morice said he parked the boat there and left it for other rescuers to use. Given the sum-of-all-fears atmosphere at the time, returning the boat "was the farthest thing from my mind," he said.

Molly Gordon said she was baffled by the lawsuit.

"This man should be so grateful he had a boat that saved lives," she said.

During a news conference at his Napoleon Avenue home Friday, Morice and his attorney, Joseph A. Marino III, displayed photographs and showed video Morice took in the neighborhood, which showed desperate high-water scenes accompanied by a bone-chilling soundtrack of screams and pounding, apparently from people trapped inside attics.

Lyons' boat, an 18-foot, 1998-model 180 Sea Sport, was one of three Morice said he commandeered after water started rising in the neighborhood. Morice said one of the other boat owners told him he was glad Morice had been able to hot-wire his boat -- Morice said he actually got instructions on how to do it from Yamaha customer service -- and the other boat owner apparently has not complained.

Morice did try to borrow a boat the old-fashioned way. But because cellular phone service was out, Morice, a lawyer, said he began text-messaging several friends Tuesday asking if they had boats he could borrow.

But all the boats his friends suggested either sank or already had been put to use, Morice said. On State Street Drive, however, he noticed two boats that appeared usable and used bolt cutters to cut gate locks and check them out. Morice said he took Lyons' because the keys were in the ignition. He said he didn't know who owned it.

Morice used the boat to deliver Molly and Irving Gordon to nearby Memorial Medical Center on Wednesday, they said. The next day, as a nightmarish scene inside the dark, humid hospital was finally ending, Morice was one of 10 boaters who helped evacuate the last patients out of Memorial, he and the Gordons said, dropping them on dry ground at St. Charles Avenue.

Morice used gas siphoned from cars on the upper floors of Memorial's parking garage to power the boats he and several friends used in rescue missions that week.

Sometime in September or October, Morice returned to the home on State Street Drive and spoke to Lyons' wife, he said, explaining why he had taken their boat. He later e-mailed the Lyons a picture of him using the boat to rescue people.

In January, he received a letter from Mills noting that the Lyons had received less than half the replacement value of the boat and its motor from their insurance.

The letter asked Morice for $12,000 to "settle this matter."

Morice said he thought the letter was "a joke" and paid little attention to it until this month, when the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit accuses Morice of taking the boat "solely to promote himself and his law practice." Although he appeared in several newspapers in the storm's aftermath, Morice said he never sought the publicity.

Mills said Morice could have been more responsible when he took the Lyons' boat.

"If I felt I had to take the boat I would have at least left a note," Mills said.

Morice's reaction? "Next time there's a major storm or natural disaster and I'm called to save lives, I'll try to remember to bring a pen and paper," he said.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1156572434292430.xml&coll=1

:bang:

Saving lives... punishable.

He stole a boat... In a fucking disaster zone and saved lives, and this Mills cunt just wants to profit.

embarrassment? For having your boat save lives?

[Josh]

Wow, that boats owner is a jackass. This wont hold up in court though. The circumstances and how the boat was used... The owner doesnt have a snowballs chances in hell on this one. No judge or jury in the world would convict him.

[Archomnislash]

Just shows how desperate the guy is... Sued for "Hubris?" LOL
But the real culprit is the insurance company... who won't pay to fix the boat.

[Soli]

>.< That's stupid of him to do that.

[Beowulf]

What lawyer would possible be stupid enough to take this case? This is so doomed to failure.

[Mastiker]

The guy could walk into court wearing... a speedo, turn to the judge and say "I stole his boat to save people. Do you need proof? Okay, here's some people I saved.... that's good? I can- I can go? All settled? Awesome, thanks pal."

Bravo to the owner of the boat for having the cajones to bring this to court. :clap:

[MNJetter]

:rofl:

The only time I've ever seen "hubris" used in actual conversation was in greek mythology class, in its original context of the attitude that one is greater or smarter than the gods.

Man, if you could sue people for simple arrogance, there are so many people in this country who would be in grave danger of going bankrupt by now.

[Kass]

I could see the judge telling him to help reimburse the cost of the boat. Morice did steal it after all. I know he saved lives with it, but it would only be fair to help the guy get the replacement costs.

As for the rest of it, the guy is an idiot. Emotional damages? He's a moron.

[Trump]

If the guy had returned the boat, there would be no case. I understand the region was in chaos following Katrina, but people are still responsible for their actions. However, I do believe this is case of "I'm going to sue because I can and it's the cool thing to do".

[Hitokage]

I could see the judge saying the guy has to pay SOME of the 12k left over from the insurance. But there's no way the asshole who is sueing is getting emotional damages.

[Ceirnian]

Doesn't matter if he has to pay, I'm willing to bet lots of people will donate so the guy doesn't actually lose any money from being sued.

[CrazyAce86]

You know that phrase "only in America"?

Yeah.

I believe that punishment for a crime-- such as stealing-- should be waived due to circumstances such as these, espeically if such crime actually saved lives like this one did.

I can understand wanting to be reimbursed, but this "emotional distress" is crap. It was Katrina! Everyone was under emotional distress! This fool of a man is a selfish, self-righteous bastard who is even more pathetic because he's letting his lawyer lead the way. (You know it was the lawyer who came up with this "emotional distress" thing.)

I've heard of other cases like this, though. Weren't the young men who commandeered a bus to get people out of Louisiana also charged with theft? I think mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration.

And I agree with Ceirnian. Especially those people whose lives he saved and their families, I think they would all donate the money. Hell, I'd donate money.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Thats just like someone beating a robber over the head with a coffe pot at a conveinence store and the owner wanted compensation for the coffee pot.

This is the dumbest lawsuit and, as we learned with the people who took food from stores, the laws hardly mattered at the moment. What a jerkoff.

[IShootYou]

A Broadmoor man who said he rescued more than 200 residents after commandeering a boat during the flood after Hurricane Katrina is being sued by the boat's owner for taking it "without receiving permission."

Is Commandeering even a word?

[Overkongen]

Yes. You commandeer a vessel.

Anywho, the important thing is what educating effect this case will have on generations to come. Do we want to teach them that if they need to steal something in order to save many lives, they have to pay large fines? Do we want to punish those who try to save other people?

I can see the scene in "Katarina 2".

"Jim-Bob, I found a boat we can use to help save all those people who're stuck, and will probably die!"

"You keep them there hands to yourself, Billy-Joe, what with my house already on it's second mortgage? I can't handle the PUNISHMENT that comes with SAVING PEOPLE."

Seriously, I hope the suer gets charged with "wasting of judges time", "being a selfish bastard", "masturbating in public", and many more.

[Kass]

If the police commandeer a private vehicle for a good reason, they have to reimburse the owner for any damage or the replacement. When an ambulance comes to your house and saves a family member, you're billed down to the last gauze pad. If I take something from a neighbor's yard to splint someone's broken leg, I have to pay them back for whatever I took.

It is only fair that the man who took the boat help pay for its loss. That is an enormous loss for a property owner. Most of these boats cost $50-$60k. In some areas, that is the better part of a house. Insurance paid for all but $12,000. The guy could have offered something.

As for the rest of the suit about the emotional damages, it is crap, but the boat owner is out of property he might not have lost were it not for the lawyer's intervention. I realize the guy did good with the boat, but his good deeds also caused someone harm. It isn't fair to the boat owner to tell him to suck it up. That's huge financial loss and had the lawyer even offered up something, this probably wouldn't have gotten this far.

[Pierrot le Fou]

People are unclear on the concept here.

This is NOT a criminal suit. He is not being arrested/charged with stealing a boat. He is being sued, in civil court, for property damage. He cannot go to jail for this, only be forced to pay restitution to the person who's property he screwed with.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing a civil suit against someone, even if they did good with your property. If I were to steal the contents of your bank account to end world hunger, save the human race from marauding aliens, AND create an unlimited energy source, I'd still have to pay you back for the money I took.

As Ceirnian said, he will most likely get donations from a large number of people to pay the $12k and then some. The boat owner will look like a putz, and all will be well with the world.

What shocks me the most is that the guy who took the boat is a lawyer and didn't acknowledge the (legitimate and real) request for compensation for taking property that isn't his.

For those of you saying 'Only in America' with this condescending tone in your post, fuck off already. The protection of property rights is one of the three major reasons (the other two being life and liberty) that the US fought the British Empire for its independence some 230 years ago. Arguing against this lawsuit in principle is like the cretins who argue against the ACLU defending the rights protected in the Constitution because they don't agree with the causes defended.

Way to fucking miss the point, folks.

[Beowulf]

If the police commandeer a private vehicle for a good reason, they have to reimburse the owner for any damage or the replacement.
Yes the police department (funded by the federal government) repays for the vehicles. They don't just send the bill to the sole cop who had to do his duty. If this guy wants his money so bad he should take offense with the national guard or FEMA for forcing the man to use his boat.

[seiji]

Morice said he took Lyons' because the keys were in the ignition.
:clap: .

[Pierrot le Fou]

Yes the police department (funded by the federal government) repays for the vehicles. They don't just send the bill to the sole cop who had to do his duty. If this guy wants his money so bad he should take offense with the national guard or FEMA for forcing the man to use his boat.
You really just don't get it, do you?

Who dictates 'need' anyway? Who decides when the law ceases to apply? Should we have an 'official disaster coordinator' who gets to coordinate which laws can be ignored under which emergencies?

The man who took the boat broke the law. It was an emergency, so it was overlooked, and no criminal charges were pressed. However, he did end up taking another guy's boat. That guy lost his property. Insurance didn't cover the loss. He wants the rest of the money. How should he go about doing this?

A) Spend his own money to put an ad in the paper saying that he lost his boat in the hurricane, and that insurance is covering all but $12k, so please pay up
B) Sue FEMA for not creating a dome around the city to 600% protect against hurricanes which caused flooding which caused boats to be needed which caused Mr. Morice to take his boat
C) Conjure $12,000 US out of his arse
D) Ask the person who took the boat for some payment for the use, and only when he is ignored (by a LAWYER who took his boat no less) use the court system

The correct answer, of course, is C. Because you seem to think that D is a no-go. Apparently if someone can prove an altruistic use for your property, you have no right to it.

"He saved lives, dammit" does not recover the $12,000 the boat owner is out.

While it's great he saved lives, life goes on, and $12,000 is a big hit to take. If you disagree, please give me $12,000 so that I can save some children in Africa from starvation.

[PopCulturePooka]

Hmm I j0sut feel no sympathy for some yacht owning wankercunt when so many people lost so much more than their precious boats.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Are you missing the part where it says the guy who took the boat is a lawyer? I doubt he's exactly poverty-stricken himself. Are you also ignoring the fact that the guy who owned the boat asked nicely beforehand in the hopes that the lawyer would do the right thing, only to be ignored entirely? By a LAWYER?

[PopCulturePooka]

Nope

I'm saying I have no sympathy for the yacht owning wanker cunt, regardless.

[Pierrot le Fou]

And you have sympathy for the yacht-yanking polite-letter-ignoring lawyer?

[PopCulturePooka]

And you have sympathy for the yacht-yanking polite-letter-ignoring lawyer?
Considering he did it too help people in need, yeah.

[Pierrot le Fou]

He ignored a polite letter asking for compensation for a boat he stole and abandoned for people in need? No. He ignored a letter asking for compensation because he thought that the law shouldn't apply to him in extraordinary circumstances, which, as a lawyer, he should know better than.

[Overkongen]

There's obeying the law, and doing the right thing.

I know that this isn't the government dragging him to court, but this wanker will still help make people think twice before they do the right thing, because they might end up in a case like this.

As his insurance covered most of his boat, they've still handed him about 45 thousand dollars. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having 45k leaves him a lot better off than several other people after Katrina.

I see your point with the starving people in Africa, but come on, these were people who were right there in front of him.

I'm sorry, but to me, there are two views here:

1: The lawsuit is fair. If the hero didn't want to get sued, he should have sat down and enjoyed the view while people around him died.

2. The lawsuit is someone making a bet with the devil about who can be the bigger asshole. The hero made a choice about which is worse, stealing, or letting innocent people all around him die.

Only in America.

[Kass]

Hmm I j0sut feel no sympathy for some yacht owning wankercunt when so many people lost so much more than their precious boats.

You don't know that this guy is a yacht owner. One of the predominant "careers" in that region is (or was) shrimping and fishing. This very well might have been a boat he used to earn his livelihood. No boat, no job. No job, no money. No money, no home, etc.

Typically, these people aren't rich and put everything they have into the boat and hope that before they die, they pay it off.

But, then again, it is easier to be sanctimonious if you assume that everyone who owns a boat is a greedy, rich jerk rather than oh, finding out who the guy is and why the boat was so important to him.

~~

When police officers do damage to property, if it isn't completely justified, they are often charged for damages. The municipality or county pays and the employee has to pay them back.

[Plekto]

Still - without a note and no attempt to return it(wouldn't have really been that hard), plus no attempt to mediate it with the owner... yeah, he deserves to get called on it.

I bet if the guy had answered the first letter and apologized, they could have come to some agreement - like free legal services for a few years or something. It's amazing what talking and a friendly attitude can accomplish.

Me? Trading a few years or even ten worth of free legal services to the guy would have been a very fair compromise as a lawyer(or if I was a carpenter, help him rebuild his home for free or something simmilar).

[Trump]

The only reason people think the guy is a putz is because he is asking for so much for "emotional damages". If he was just sueing for the cost and loss of use of the boat it would be another matter.

[Plekto]

yeah - everyone should watch some of the various court TV shows fom time to time.

You can't sue for emotional damages unless specific conditions are met, which are basically along the lines of public humiliation or sometihng simmilar - and then only if it had a financial impact.(therapist bills, whatnot)

So that part of the suit is immediately thrown out. But probably 50% of people try to pad the cae - and all it does is make the judge wonder about whether they really are sincere or just looking to vent like a child.(ie - it hurts their case in general)

[Ceirnian]

Like Kass and PLF said, helping people is great but you can't ignore the law when it comes to it. In these kinds of situations you have a HUGE advantage to paying back the money. You honestly did it to save people, therefor people will be more likely to help save -you- from the cost of doing it. All the guy has to do is ask and he will receive.

Now if it were my boat stolen I would have gone about this in a different way, I would talk to the person who did it and explain how much the 12k is screwing me over. From there I would discuss options and ask if he could let the public know that, while he did a great thing, it's affecting someone else greatly and that he could use any help in restoring his lost funds. How many people do you think would love to pitch in? Hell even some companies might throw down some money for publicity. I can come up with plenty of ways to make this situation work, taking it to court is probably one of the least effective ways.

All in all the boat owner is a jackass for taking it to court, he probably sent a threatening letter which made the hero of our story laugh and ignore it in the first place. Oh well, guess he'll be remembered in a negative way then.

[Spaatz965]

You know what has me curious....

In January, he received a letter from Mills noting that the Lyons had received less than half the replacement value of the boat and its motor from their insurance.

Why did the insurance company short this guy $12k? Did the insurance company re-imburse *fair market value* less deductable instead of *replacement value*?

Also, having left the boat docked in the face of a Cat-3 hurricane, is there truely a reasonable expectation that the boat would have survived? Did the owner excercise due dillegence in protecting that property? Especially seeing how the keys were left in the ignition?

Are there no good samaritan statutes that would prevent this type of litigation going past an opening motion for summary judgement?

Why was there no face to face conversation prior to the letter (which was likely sent on the advice of a lawyer)? Were good faith due dillegence steps taken by Lyons to contact Morice, or was the letter a facade of due dillegence? There was a conversation with Lyons' wife...and even e-mail contact in September/October, obviously the lines of communication were there for use... and what was in the letter that Morice would consider it a joke?

What, if any, contact, or attempt at contact, was there in the seven months between the January letter and the filing of this law suit? What took so long to file the suit? Why didn't Lyons call, write again, or otherwise try to contact his neighbor or former neighbor?

How likely is a 1998-model 180 Sea Sport to be a working boat rather than a luxery...especially since the article implies the dock where the boat was taken was within a couple blocks of both Morice's and Lyons' homes...in a neighborhood within easy walking distance of a water way.

In areas where many experienced devestating losses with little or no means of redress beyond what the government might provide, and seeing how Morice appears to have acted selflessly, I would expect a heavy backlash against Lyons' action...in the community, and quite possibly in court.

[Roxie]

wow, just wow.

[PopCulturePooka]

How likely is a 1998-model 180 Sea Sport to be a working boat rather than a luxery...especially since the article implies the dock where the boat was taken was within a couple blocks of both Morice's and Lyons' homes...in a neighborhood within easy walking distance of a water way.

And if it was a working boat, why isn't he suing for loss of income/livelihood, instead going for 'embarassment'?

[SlickWilly440]

Legally what the man did by taking the boat was illegal and he should be punished for stealing another man's property.

On the other hand, what the man did by stealing the boat was for the greater good by helping other people's lives and not just for personal gain.

[MNJetter]

I do kind of agree with Trump - I think I would have had a much different view of the situation if the guy was sueing for straight boat compensation, rather than emotional damages and "hubris."

That in of itself is suspicious to me, and reeks of a frivolous suit. What, did the guy think that he couldn't win a case if he used legitimate reasons?

$12,000 was "less than half the worth" of a sports boat? Maybe it was a used vehicle to begin with, in which case insurance is under no obligation to pay him the original market price for it.

[Plekto]

You basically summed up the argument right there - and the defenese I bet :)
He wants new replacement value for a used boat. In a Hurricane, which pretty much would have borked it anyways unless he was stupidly lucky.

Ie - "proove to me that the insurance company's valuation of the damages/loss was inadequate." I bet he could get a nice letter from said insurance company as well, backing up how they paid the policy off. A that point, it;s over and he has to go throught the insurance company.

Though he probably did - and was spit out by their legal department. Then he went fishing for the rest of what he thought he was owed.

[ShadowDeth]

He stole a boat, end of story. That is against the law and action is being taken.

[Ceirnian]

Things aren't that simple though.

[ShadowDeth]

They actually are. Morality has a place when determining a law, but a crisis is no reason to steal from people.

[Kass]

You don't have any choice but to leave a boat docked during a hurricane. Only ships can sail out so sea and survive. Authorities prevent you from taking boats,etc. You can only take the necessities to prevent as much clogging of the roads as they can.

I didn't say it was a working boat. I said what if it was. None of you know what he did with that boat anymore than I do.

Insurance companies do not have to reimburse the replacement value, but rather the resale value of the boat. They reimburse what the owner could have gotten if he sold it in a private transaction, not what it costs to get another boat from the dealer, even if the boat was bought new. Besides, insurance companies are short changing everyone down there. One of my co-workers is a Katrina "refugee" and her accounts of dealing with them would give Stephen King nightmares.

The point is, emotional crap aside, Mr. Lyons would have had an undamaged, functional boat were it not for Mr. Morice's actions. Mr. Morice could have docked the boat back where he found it, but didn't. He could have secured it somewhere else in so that it could be returned, but didn't. He wasobviously in the area, so he could have maintained control/possession of the boat. He could have repsonded to the letter and negotiated some sort of agreement. He could have called the guy, said I don't have the money, but I bet we could raise it by going to some benefactor/the public.

No, he ignored the guy. Even people who might have been considered well off lost everything and $12,000 is huge to them. These people had to rebuild their home and buy everything they had again, if they could.

Alexa and her husband burned through all their savings, liquidated their 401(k)s and borrowed extensively to make up for what the insurance companies didn't cover. They are paying rent on an apartment here and are paying the mortgage on their home in Gulfport, Mississippi. They were very well off down there. Two very good incomes, etc. Now, they live month to month trying to sell their finally rebuilt home in Gulfport. If someone took their property and refused to compensate them the $12,000 for it, they'd be devastated financially.

That isn't a trivial amount and the guy might very well need it. It was hubris on Mr. Morice's part to ignore the letter, assuming he bore no resposibility for that particular loss, regardless of what he did with it. Mr. Lyons doesn't deserve damages for anything beyond the value of the boat, but he deserves that.

[Trump]

If the boat was being used to rescue people, it obviously survived the hurricane. People don't need to be rescued until after the hurricane.

We definately don't have all the facts about this case, but it seems obvious that both parties could have handled it better.

[Mastiker]

I think that the guy suing for his boat sounds like a lying sack of crap :D

While 12k definitely is a lot of cash, the boat owner seems to be making a lot of claims that usually don't go with the loss of property in a crisis, at least, it seems that way to me. I'm not sure I'd be emotionally damaged by losing my source of income, or rather, I wouldn't claim it without viable proof such as major depression or therapy bills. Hell, the only emotion I'd feel is pissed, especially after being ignored. I'm sure the boat owner might feel proud that his boat at least served a good purpose, but regardless, he still needs that money.

And while 12K would be a lot for the boat owner, it'd be just as much for the guy who took it. Didn't he also lose everything in Katrina? Wouldn't he be just as financially screwed by losing 12K?

I highly doubt that he could have brought the boat back to it's original spot, as a crisis can be somewhat hellish, however, he should have at least tethered it to something.

[Kass]

Teh dock he got the boat from wasn't far from his own home. Surely he made it back to his house several times to survey the damage. He couldn't take the boat back? I bet he could have.

[bebopgirl26]

Hey there,

I live in New Orleans and just wanted to clear a few minor details up.

This boat wasn't used for work, like shrimping for example, it had to be purily recreational ( a lot of people down here have boats, they spend more money on their boats than homes or cars) because it was kept at his home. I'm sure it was just in his driveway,and not a dock because there is where most people keep them. I assume this because of the locations they mentioned in the article. They are residental neighborhoods like the one I live in.
The boats could have survived Katrina if left there. Quite a few boats did with only minor or no damages.
Anyway, just thought I'd clarify because if you don't live here it's kind of difficult to figure that stuff out from just reading the article.

[Trump]

For all we know the guy was planning on using the boat to move to Florida or something. Then he came back and it was gone. That could really screw someone up.

All I'm saying with this example is that people always jump to conclusions. We won't ever know all the details of the case and the media surely won't give us an accurate story. Saying that the guy is definately a scumbag just because that is how the media presented him is not being fair at all.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

I'm sure fewer people would be on his side if he only took the boat to save himself.

[Plekto]

I think the critical part here is the fact that he was a lawyer and was getting publicity for his actions. He isn't hurting in the least. Plus, name me any poor lawyers. Shoot - the guy could have given free legal advice in compensation - which is invaluable given the insurance claims everyone is going through. But he did nothing and shined the owner on.

I'd have sued, too. OTOH, just for the difference in my settlement and what it would cost to replace it(not buy new). That probably would have been 5-6K.

Now, as for the boat - someone has it - and stole it. While he left it after rescuing the people, it's not GONE - someone else has it in the area. I bet you could hire a private investigator to find it pretty quickly - for a lot less than the court costs are going to run.

[MNJetter]

Plus, name me any poor lawyers.

The guy my grandfather consults with landowning issues (sorry, I don't know his actual name). He lives in a town of 500 people in Wisconsin, and since he's the only lawyer in that half of the county, he does everything - real-estate, divorces, reading wills for the deceased - he's even defended a couple of county criminal cases. There's really not a lot of cash you can milk doing legal stuff for farmers and loggers, and this guy owns his own "firm" (i.e., office for him and his secretary), so he has to worry about all the expenses and whatnot himself, from his own pocket.

Nothing to do with the thread, but you said "any" poor lawyers. They're out there.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It is very very very very simple.

A lawyer took someone else's boat. He was informed that the boat was not insured at its proper value. He ignored the letter. He got sued.

The second you start making property ownership conditional on need is the second you open the floodgates for nonsense. Property ownership is not supposed to be conditional. This is why people get their feathers ruffled over eminent domain, confiscation of property, and whatnot.

He took a boat that was not his. He did not return it. The owner got fucked out of $12,000. The lawyer ignored this. He is culpable for that loss.

Ignore the other details, they are not relevant, they are there so that people will come to the conclusion they wrote the article with the intention of conveying. A lawyer should NEVER consider himself above the law. I would find it justified if he were to have his membership in the bar revoked for this.

[Kass]

I think the critical part here is the fact that he was a lawyer and was getting publicity for his actions. He isn't hurting in the least. Plus, name me any poor lawyers. Shoot - the guy could have given free legal advice in compensation - which is invaluable given the insurance claims everyone is going through. But he did nothing and shined the owner on.

I'd have sued, too. OTOH, just for the difference in my settlement and what it would cost to replace it(not buy new). That probably would have been 5-6K.

Now, as for the boat - someone has it - and stole it. While he left it after rescuing the people, it's not GONE - someone else has it in the area. I bet you could hire a private investigator to find it pretty quickly - for a lot less than the court costs are going to run.

You've obviously never bought a boat. One of the guys in our office bought a boat similar to that one only larger and paid $20k for it used. All I could think was "Wow, what a waste."

The insurance company doesn't give you replacement value for the boat. They give you what they think you could get if you sold it less a deductible usually. He needs another $12k just to replace it.

The boat is probably long gone. A lot of stolen property down there is on ebay and a lot has been brought north. Watch out for used cars not being sold by a dealer. People are buying junked cars from that area, doing enough to get them clean and running and selling them. When the car dies out soon after, they are in the wind.

[ShadowDeth]

It is very very very very simple.

A lawyer took someone else's boat. He was informed that the boat was not insured at its proper value. He ignored the letter. He got sued.

The second you start making property ownership conditional on need is the second you open the floodgates for nonsense. Property ownership is not supposed to be conditional. This is why people get their feathers ruffled over eminent domain, confiscation of property, and whatnot.


I was going to post that exactly, the other day but I figured someone else could play the troll. But now that it's said:

I don't really give a shit why he stole the boat, he stole it. The law comes down on him and now he's acting like certain circumstances like a "crisis" entitle him to take whatever he wants.

"But he saved lives!"

Well, when does this bullshit stop being enough to break the law? Is it ok to steal the boat if you're going to sail food over to a homeless person? What about if your kid *really* needs surgery and the best surgeon in town is across a river for whatever reason. Is that good enough to take something you don't own?

It's unpopular, but he's getting what he deserves.

[Overkongen]

How right you are. He should have listened to the people around him crying for help, and thought. "Too bad I don't have a boat. Oh well, guess I'll just leave them there to die."

[Trump]

Really, he just needs to take responsibility for his actions. It is a small matter of respect to recognize that the property isn't his and needs to be returned later.

[Mastiker]

"But he saved lives!"

Well, when does this bullshit stop being enough to break the law? Is it ok to steal the boat if you're going to sail food over to a homeless person? What about if your kid *really* needs surgery and the best surgeon in town is across a river for whatever reason. Is that good enough to take something you don't own?

It's unpopular, but he's getting what he deserves.

?

dude, people have even less reason to break the law than that. Drug dealers, murderers, rapists, chop shop, hell, even most white collar crime is selfish at best. At least this guy had enough decency to break the law in order to save people. Hell, even if he used it to save himself, I still wouldn't blame him for taking the boat.

You're right though, even though he broke the law to save people, he still broke the law. To say that he deserves what he got is bullshit. Not owning up to the responsibility of breaking the law, well, that's bullshit too, and that's what this guy did.... but the boat owner could have made a few more attempts to try and settle this out of court. With the publicity that this case is getting, or did get, it'd probably be more likely for there not to be a group of people calling him a dick on some internet forum that he's never going to see in his life :D

[ShadowDeth]

At least this guy had enough decency to break the law in order to save people. Hell, even if he used it to save himself, I still wouldn't blame him for taking the boat.


I wasn't aware that the ends justified the means when dealing with law? Or that what I, or you *personally* think about this situation matters?


You're right though, even though he broke the law to save people, he still broke the law. To say that he deserves what he got is bullshit. Not owning up to the responsibility of breaking the law, well, that's bullshit too, and that's what this guy did.... but the boat owner could have made a few more attempts to try and settle this out of court. With the publicity that this case is getting, or did get, it'd probably be more likely for there not to be a group of people calling him a dick on some internet forum that he's never going to see in his life

Too true :D

He did deserve it though. Public opinion doesn't determine right and wrong, just morality - which is something he has on his side. He still didn't return it though so he's a douche.

[MNJetter]

Nobody will ever, ever be able to convince me that simply breaking the law is enough to determine whether or not an action is wrong. All that does is make it illegal. There have been laws throughout history that have been based on anything but morality, and nearly all philosophers agree that broad human ethics (i.e., stealing is wrong) are never completely universal, and there will be exceptional cases in which it is forgiveable, or even commendable.

I happen to agree that the lawyer should have at least responded to the letter with his intentions when he first got it, and by not doing so, he turned the focus from his act of good samaritanism to the boat owner's loss, and now it's the lawyer who is in the wrong. But never once did the fact that laws were broken factor into my assessment of who deserved what in an ethical sense.

I agree that it's a simple, black-and-white issue, legally. But I would challenge anybody who claims that the law automatically makes the definitive moral judgment.

[ShadowDeth]

But I would challenge anybody who claims that the law automatically makes the definitive moral judgment.

How do you wish to challenge me then? I think laws are *much* more important than morality, in the large scheme of our race.

[MNJetter]

What country has the definitive say on the laws that are correct? On what time period should we base our assumption that American laws are infallible? 1950? Should we go back to pre-civil-rights movement? 1925, when it was illegal to have a beer?

Or perhaps we should go back even further than the last century, when a black person counted as 3/5ths of a citizen, and nobody but white male landowners were allowed to vote.

Maybe that's too far back. We should look at modern America, which of course is the be-all and end-all of legal correctness. Do you really think it's that important for young men and women to wait until more than fourth of their projected lifespan has passed before they're allowed to touch an alchoholic beverage? Geez, give a 17-year-old a glass of wine at dinner, and their high school career will just go down the toilet. An adult who has had a shot of tequila is legally safe to drive in most states, even if the individual can't hold their liquor, but a teenger who has had a beer and is not allowed to drive is dangerous enough to take up a significant portion of the police force's budget. What about jaywalking on country roads? When the nearest crosswalk is a half-mile away, I'm just gonna look both ways and cross, not jog to the damn corner. Or going *gasp* 2 miles an hour over the speed limit!

Who makes the laws? What right do they have to tell me what is right or wrong? Are they philosophers? Are they sociological experts? Are they prophets?

The law is important in that it keeps a civilization from going over the brink into chaos and anarchy. But it is dangerous for anybody to get into the mindset that the law is the most important determiner of what is right and wrong, or that it is more important than thinking for yourself what is acceptable or not. It is our interpretation of what is right and wrong that makes our laws, not the other way around.

[ShadowDeth]

What country has the definitive say on the laws that are correct? On what time period should we base our assumption that American laws are infallible? 1950? Should we go back to pre-civil-rights movement? 1925, when it was illegal to have a beer?


I don't think that has anything to do with it. I believe that not stealing from each other is conducive to the health of society, and therefor you don't make exceptions for it. Super for him, he saved lives - but now he's paying the price for his actions. As for some laws being incorrect, that's a case by case basis. I thought it was assumed that "I think laws are *much* more important than morality" implied "good laws", not frivolous ones that don't target any real problem.

Or perhaps we should go back even further than the last century, when a black person counted as 3/5ths of a citizen, and nobody but white male landowners were allowed to vote.

I can't find the rolleyes emote. :Rolleyes:

Maybe that's too far back. We should look at modern America, which of course is the be-all and end-all of legal correctness. Do you really think it's that important for young men and women to wait until more than fourth of their projected lifespan has passed before they're allowed to touch an alchoholic beverage? Geez, give a 17-year-old a glass of wine at dinner, and their high school career will just go down the toilet. An adult who has had a shot of tequila is legally safe to drive in most states, even if the individual can't hold their liquor, but a teenger who has had a beer and is not allowed to drive is dangerous enough to take up a significant portion of the police force's budget.


I fail to see what this tangent has to do with the issue at hand, or the greater issue of law. But yes, I do. People are stupid and they slowly become less stupid over time just through sheer trial and error, even if it's impossible for them to do so normally. Do you want a 10 year old drinking alcohol?

What about jaywalking on country roads? When the nearest crosswalk is a half-mile away, I'm just gonna look both ways and cross, not jog to the damn corner. Or going *gasp* 2 miles an hour over the speed limit!

You don't seem to understand the concept of law. It's not the fact that you broke it by *thissssss* much, it's the fact you showed abandon for what it stands for. By the same token, do you believe that your cash is worth whatever medium backs it? Think you can drop off a 20 at the local bank and get the gold it represents? By signing on the dotted line (Ie: being born into this country, not having the strength to affect change or the resources to move) you have obligated yourself to follow it's laws.

I don't know why i'm even dignifying such a juvenile comparison.

Who makes the laws? What right do they have to tell me what is right or wrong?


People who have more power than you.

Are they philosophers? Are they sociological experts? Are they prophets?

Are you an anarchist? I can't believe i'm reading this from a grown woman who interacts with the real world.

The law is important in that it keeps a civilization from going over the brink into chaos and anarchy. But it is dangerous for anybody to get into the mindset that the law is the most important determiner of what is right and wrong, or that it is more important than thinking for yourself what is acceptable or not.


You're assuming there is no way to determine what is inherently right or wrong independent of morality, and that laws are too black or white to enforce that. What's right or wrong is very subjective from person to person (who most likely is a stupid one) and henceforth they need laws in place to shape their opinions of society. So that when they do grow up, certain things like whining about the boat stealer saving lives but being charged get ignored while people who use recreational drugs do hard time.

It is our interpretation of what is right and wrong that makes our laws, not the other way around.

It's actually not. The age of consent and legal age for drinking are written the way they are knowing that sex and alcohol can be had well before it's "legal". They do that because they have to target the lowest common denominator and then go even further below that because of pressure from various groups. A girl can get pregnant at 12 in a lot of cases, and it's possible she might not be traumatized by the sex (especially in this generation). She can't legally though, because for everyone who can handle that situation, there are assloads more who cannot and they have to be controlled for their own good.

That's what laws mean. If you're going to say "Wah wah people shouldn't be told what to do", well then you cannot observe law. The entire concept of Law is that few know what is better for the masses.

Random point of trivia: It's said that humans go through up to five stages of moral orientation. Not everybody gets all the way to stage five in their lifetime, but it generally goes in a particular order. And following the law just because it's the law is only stage 3.

Who said that, is there proof, and why should I care?

[MNJetter]

Wow, you got ahold of that last bit somewhere in the 3 seconds I left it there before I decided to chop it out. It was gratuitous and I can't remember where I heard it, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

Anyway, my response was juvenile because so was your assertion that just because the man breaks the law, he was 100% in the wrong.

If you think the law is so important, why do you tolerate people breaking it? I brought up the alchohol thing, because even though the majority of people take it as a "suggestion," and the people who made it into a law know full well that people are still going to drink underage, it is a law. You can't say "I think that the law is more important than morality" and then pick and choose which laws are important or not, based on your own morality. That in of itself is proof that you use your own morality above the letter of the law.

I believe that not stealing from each other is conducive to the health of society, and therefor you don't make exceptions for it.

So......morality or law? Which is it? That sentence right there is one based in your own personal beliefs. If you really thought the law was more important, you'd be saying "I believe that not stealing from each other is against the law, and therefore you don't make exceptions for it." Of course it's not conducive to the health of society. That's why we make a law about it. But in determining whether something is right or wrong, we ultimately look to our own personal beliefs, and not the letter of the law. It just so happens that, in this case, your personal beliefs happen to agree with the law. If someone made a law that said something you really disagreed with, you would use your own personal beliefs to try and change the law, instead of just shrugging and saying "Well, it's the law, and so I guess that makes it more important than my own morality."

So which is really more important, assuming that the importance of one doesn't necessarily negate the other completely?

I understand perfectly what the law is. But the law, and what the law stands for, are two different things. You're scolding me for insisting that the law is equal to the letter of the law, but actually that was more me being sarcastic in response to what I interpreted that you are doing. Because you have to admit, "He stole a boat. Stealing is illegal. Therefore it is wrong, and he deserves what he gets" sounds more "letter of the law" than "spirit of the law."

No, I'm not an anarchist, I was just trying to point out that the people making the laws are definately not experts on what is right or wrong. Just because someone has power doesn't mean they should tell you what you should think about something. It's all well and good to follow the law, but it's another thing entirely to let it lead your beliefs wholeheartedly.

You're assuming there is no way to determine what is inherently right or wrong independent of morality,

No, I'm assuming that determining what is inherently right or wrong solely on the basis of whether it is illegal or not is incorrect.

As far as alchohol and teen pregnancy and whatnot goes, we will have to agree to disagree on that, as it has nothing to do with the argument at hand aside from citing an example. Personally, I think that the government has no business with that sort of moral policing, but whatever. If they want to make useless laws about that kind of stuff and ignore people who are actually hurting others, that's their prerogative.

As for some laws being incorrect, that's a case by case basis. I thought it was assumed that "I think laws are *much* more important than morality" implied "good laws", not frivolous ones that don't target any real problem.

Laws are laws. If you're going to pick and choose the good ones from the bad ones, you're making the argument that you find your own morality to be more important than the law in determining what is right or wrong.

I said nothing about the law being unimportant in determining how people are punished. That's necessary for society. My original claim was that the law should not be used as a moral compass, but beliefs and morals of a people should be the thing that guides the writing or erasing of the laws.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be told what to do by the law. I'm saying they shouldn't be told what to think.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The moral compass of a nation determined the law, MNJ. Mr. John Locke (who does happen to be a philosopher) stated in his Treatise on Government that government's duty was to protect, and I quote, "Life, Liberty, and Property." Hence the colonists, in their creation of a nation, decided that they didn't like the British style in which the King owned everything, and property ownership was dependent on his whim.

You are asking us to disregard that fundamental belief in the importance of property ownership because property laws were broken to save people. That is obscene. There is no issue with saving other people -- the issue stems from disregarding the property laws that existed when he did it.

He could have returned the boat, or answered the letter he got, but he didn't.

He could have asked the people he saved to contribute a little bit each, and had that pay for it, but he didn't.

He could have asked the public to contribute money to the man for the boat that saved people's lives, but he didn't.

He took the boat, disregarded property laws -- unapologetically at that -- and didn't take responsibility. As a lawyer he should know better. Laws of the sort you'd like to disregard are fundamental to this country and its history, as well as the philosophy it represents. You act as if my morality is screwed for following the law in this case, as if I only believe in it because it's the law.

I will say quite plainly, so that you can condemn my morality further, that I would rather have the people he saved die than to see the property laws that he disregarded thrown by the wayside. Do you know how many people died to set those laws in place? Do you have ANY concept of what they represent, and what they've lasted through?

They are far more precious than a few people's lives.

[Jetsetlemming]

"Life, Liberty, and Property."
._. They said that was "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness" when I was school.


I hate public school. :gloomy:

[Spaatz965]

Does imminent threat to human life or safety trump property rights?

Example: I see a young child fall into a pool. The child to all appearances is drowning. The pool is in a glass enclosed room. All entrances to the pool area are locked and no one else is in sight or responsive to knocking, yelling, etc.

IF: I pick up a heavy, yet expensive, tool from a third party’s property as the only viable object reasonably in view, use it to smash though the glass door (destroying the tool in the process) and save the child, what is my liability? Am I criminally liable for trespass, theft and destruction of private property? Am I civilly liable to reimburse either or both property owners for the property destroyed during the rescue? What is my moral responsibility?

IF: I do nothing and the child drowns, what is my liability? Am I criminally liable for having failed to act? Could I be civilly liable for a wrongful death? What is my moral responsibility?

The people Morice rescued, were they facing imminent risk to their lives and/or safety...keeping in mind the government's less than stellar execution of rescue efforts...keeping in mind the chemical and biological polutants saturating the flood waters...keeping in mind the looters taking pot shots at just about anything moving...keeping in mind the availabilty of food and potable water. What were Morice's legal and/or moral obligations in relation to those people and to third party property rights?

What was Morice's obligation to respond to the written demand for reimbursement for the $12,000. Keeping in mind that, based on the article, there was no prior discussion of liability...the only prior conversation mentioned appears to have been initiated by Morice with Lyons' wife. Also keep in mind, again based on the article, there was no follow up until seven months later when a civil suit was filed. Further, by responding to reject the claim, no matter how well the response was crafted, wouldn't the response be additional evidence in a lawsuit (and frankly, a letter out of the blue rather than a direct conversation, smells a whole lot like Lyons' was preparing to lawyer up to sue...or already had).

...and what is a used Sea Ray 180 Sport (http://www.thebiglot.com/boat_listings/SEA_RAY/180%20SPORT.htm) going for? Anywhere from $13,000 to $16,000 for recent model years. A 1999 Sea Ray 180 Bow Runner (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1999-18-SEA-RAY-Bowrider-180BR-with-Trailer-ALMOST-NEW_W0QQitemZ180021931204QQihZ008QQcategoryZ63685Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) is going for less than $7,000 on ebay. New, a 185 sport (http://www.searay.com/configurator.asp?ycid=13008&#) is running just over $20,000. Sounds a lot like Lyons is after a new boat to replace the 8 year old boat he's suing Morice over.

Is Lyons entitled to enough for a new boat, or enough to cover what he would have gotten by selling his used boat? He's suing for $5,000 more than a slightly different model...and he's already recieved compensation from his insurance company...so even assuming Morice has some liability...where is it? $12k sounds like more than fair market value - even forgetting any difference from the insurance company.

PS...Jet, don't hate your school. The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" which is generally understood to refer to and mean specifically "Life, Liberty and Property". It's interesting that in that line, life and liberty come before property...

[MNJetter]

You are asking us to disregard that fundamental belief in the importance of property ownership because property laws were broken to save people.

No I'm not.

Actually, I agree with the assessment that the lawyer was in the wrong, and I think he should pay for the boat.

Did I ever say we shouldn't punish him for stealing the boat?

I believe, personally, that stealing is wrong, and though the man took it for a noble cause, he should have made things right after he was done, and compensated the boat owner for it. I believe that strongly. But I know full well that I believe this, not simply because it's the law, but because it's a value I grew up with, that my parents held, and that I share. If stealing was legal, I would feel the same way.

I will say quite plainly, so that you can condemn my morality further, that I would rather have the people he saved die than to see the property laws that he disregarded thrown by the wayside. Do you know how many people died to set those laws in place? Do you have ANY concept of what they represent, and what they've lasted through?

I took American history, same as you. Of course I know what our law represents, and the sacrifices it took to accomplish. I try not to forget the rest of history either, though - the centuries following the revolutionary war, in which some of our greatest heroes died fighting laws that were wrong, and our constitution has been amended many times to accomodate for the fact that it didn't have an inpenetrable moral goodness.

I would never wish a stupid sacrifice in a single crisis situation just so that the laws can be upheld. I think they should, in this case, but given a straight, no-compromises choice between letting the boat issue go uncompensated or sacrificing the lives of a dozen or so people, I'd let the boat go. Of course I would rather everybody did what was right and the man be penalized for stealing, but one incident left unenforced because of extenuating circumstances would hardly uproot the philosophy that our founding fathers laid down.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Does imminent threat to human life or safety trump property rights?

No.

Example: I see a young child fall into a pool. The child to all appearances is drowning. The pool is in a glass enclosed room. All entrances to the pool area are locked and no one else is in sight or responsive to knocking, yelling, etc.

IF: I pick up a heavy, yet expensive, tool from a third party’s property as the only viable object reasonably in view, use it to smash though the glass door (destroying the tool in the process) and save the child, what is my liability? Am I criminally liable for trespass, theft and destruction of private property? Am I civilly liable to reimburse either or both property owners for the property destroyed during the rescue? What is my moral responsibility?

You are criminally liable for trespass if the property owner presses charges. Had the boat owner in the original post decided to press charges on theft, I'm relatively sure that the police would have to follow up on it. He would likely be found innocent, or if found guilty would promptly be pardoned, but he would be held to criminal law for that action as the person in the hypothetical situation would too.

The person in the hypothetical example would be liable for damage to property in regards to both the expensive tool and the window smashed.

Your moral responsibility is to follow your own moral code. If that means saving the child, then it means saving the child. If it means upholding the law, then it means upholding the law.

IF: I do nothing and the child drowns, what is my liability? Am I criminally liable for having failed to act? Could I be civilly liable for a wrongful death? What is my moral responsibility?

No liability at all.

The people Morice rescued, were they facing imminent risk to their lives and/or safety...keeping in mind the government's less than stellar execution of rescue efforts...keeping in mind the chemical and biological polutants saturating the flood waters...keeping in mind the looters taking pot shots at just about anything moving...keeping in mind the availabilty of food and potable water. What were Morice's legal and/or moral obligations in relation to those people and to third party property rights?

He was legally obligated to uphold the law, or accept the consequences of his actions if he felt that the moral compulsion involved was more important. His moral obligation was up to him, and it likely involved saving other people, though that too is uncertain.

What was Morice's obligation to respond to the written demand for reimbursement for the $12,000. Keeping in mind that, based on the article, there was no prior discussion of liability...the only prior conversation mentioned appears to have been initiated by Morice with Lyons' wife. Also keep in mind, again based on the article, there was no follow up until seven months later when a civil suit was filed. Further, by responding to reject the claim, no matter how well the response was crafted, wouldn't the response be additional evidence in a lawsuit (and frankly, a letter out of the blue rather than a direct conversation, smells a whole lot like Lyons' was preparing to lawyer up to sue...or already had).

His legal obligation was to either accept that he would get sued, or to address the letter. He seems to have done neither. A response to the letter would indicate the desire to start an out of court settlement before having it filed as an official lawsuit. Since Morice has admitted he's taken the boat, there would be little lost in admitting as much in a letter. He is legally liable. Period. The question is only how much he's liable for.

...and what is a used Sea Ray 180 Sport (http://www.thebiglot.com/boat_listings/SEA_RAY/180%20SPORT.htm) going for? Anywhere from $13,000 to $16,000 for recent model years. A 1999 Sea Ray 180 Bow Runner (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1999-18-SEA-RAY-Bowrider-180BR-with-Trailer-ALMOST-NEW_W0QQitemZ180021931204QQihZ008QQcategoryZ63685Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) is going for less than $7,000 on ebay. New, a 185 sport (http://www.searay.com/configurator.asp?ycid=13008&#) is running just over $20,000. Sounds a lot like Lyons is after a new boat to replace the 8 year old boat he's suing Morice over.

Is Lyons entitled to enough for a new boat, or enough to cover what he would have gotten by selling his used boat? He's suing for $5,000 more than a slightly different model...and he's already recieved compensation from his insurance company...so even assuming Morice has some liability...where is it? $12k sounds like more than fair market value - even forgetting any difference from the insurance company.

This is obviously a different issue. How much he's owed from whom is something none of us can answer. It does not change the fact that Morice is liable for damages done to the boat.

MNJ, setting precedent stating that at certain times property rights cannot be enforced is a very dangerous precedent and DOES strike at the heart of what the founding fathers wanted to prevent. The laws are supposed to be objective for good reason, not enforced on whims.

Many many many law-changing court cases are fought on one instance. Precedent is set by these singular events. One exception CAN and DOES change the law.

[Jetsetlemming]

Example: I see a young child fall into a pool. The child to all appearances is drowning. The pool is in a glass enclosed room. All entrances to the pool area are locked and no one else is in sight or responsive to knocking, yelling, etc.

IF: I pick up a heavy, yet expensive, tool from a third party’s property as the only viable object reasonably in view, use it to smash though the glass door (destroying the tool in the process) and save the child, what is my liability? Am I criminally liable for trespass, theft and destruction of private property? Am I civilly liable to reimburse either or both property owners for the property destroyed during the rescue? What is my moral responsibility?

You look for something that won't break off of a glass window. *steals SD's roll eyes emote* If you find a tool that WON'T break, after you use it, you return it, rather than abandoning it. I haven't seen any reason yet why the guy didn't return the boat.

PS...Jet, don't hate your school. The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" which is generally understood to refer to and mean specifically "Life, Liberty and Property". It's interesting that in that line, life and liberty come before property...
Ah. Thanks. :P

[Nightowl]

this type of stuff is why you let ppl die on the side of the road . I dont know if New Orleans has a good sumarition law but thats what id be looking into if i was the lawyer . Depending where you live in the usa you can be protected against this type of stuff if your helping ppl .

[MNJetter]

MNJ, setting precedent stating that at certain times property rights cannot be enforced is a very dangerous precedent and DOES strike at the heart of what the founding fathers wanted to prevent. The laws are supposed to be objective for good reason, not enforced on whims.

Many many many law-changing court cases are fought on one instance. Precedent is set by these singular events. One exception CAN and DOES change the law.

Then change it. (Note: I'm still talking hypothetically in the sense of lives vs. law here, and not about the actual situation in which we can and probably will have both) Let's set a precedent, and change the law to legalize stealing for the purpose of saving lives during a hurricaine so strong that ranks as one of the ten strongest hurricaines in the entire recorded history of hurricaines in the atlantic ocean. :P

Honestly, I don't think that a precedent set in a situation this extreme would uproot anything. You have to realize the extremity of the situation, too.

I still think the law should be upheld. But that's because I don't have to make that black and white choice, between saving human lives and upholding the letter of the law. If I had to, I hold the lives and safety of human beings more dear than I hold any law, or the sacrifices it took to make it.

[Pierrot le Fou]

There is absolutely no problem with breaking the law so long as you're willing to accept the potential consequences of getting caught.

[Beowulf]

Jesus people, you're all arguing over this crap when it doesn't even look like half of you read the article in question. Let me highlight some important passages for you:


Morice used gas siphoned from cars on the upper floors of Memorial's parking garage to power the boats he and several friends used in rescue missions that week.

Sometime in September or October, Morice returned to the home on State Street Drive and spoke to Lyons' wife, he said, explaining why he had taken their boat. He later e-mailed the Lyons a picture of him using the boat to rescue people.

In January, he received a letter from Mills noting that the Lyons had received less than half the replacement value of the boat and its motor from their insurance.

The letter asked Morice for $12,000 to "settle this matter."

Morice said he thought the letter was "a joke" and paid little attention to it until this month, when the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit accuses Morice of taking the boat "solely to promote himself and his law practice." Although he appeared in several newspapers in the storm's aftermath, Morice said he never sought the publicity.

Mills said Morice could have been more responsible when he took the Lyons' boat.

"If I felt I had to take the boat I would have at least left a note," Mills said.

Morice's reaction? "Next time there's a major storm or natural disaster and I'm called to save lives, I'll try to remember to bring a pen and paper," he said.

Basically the douche boat owner isn't seeking replacement funds for his boat, he's seeking money just to get back at the guy. Then he bitches that Morice didn't "leave a note" even though he came back to explain what happened to the guys boat. Morice did the right thing, he reported that he took the boat, he could have just vanished into the disaster like all the looters.

[MNJetter]

Heh, I'm not even arguing over the specific case anymore. I was just having fun debating the whole hypothetical value issue.

[Jetsetlemming]

That doesn't answer why he didn't return the boat afterwards, Beowulf.

Morice made no attempt to return the boat, Mills said, and it remains missing.

[erbiumfiber]

In tort law (which is what we're dealing with here) there is the defense of "necessity." So the law does in fact take into account situations where the public good outweighs the right of the property owner. However, I think in this case it would only get the lawyer off for use of the boat. Not returning it is another matter entirely. But, yes, in extreme necessity, you can trespass, take stuff, etc. Our founding fathers (or, actually, English common law) foresaw situations like Katrina. Law is pretty amazing stuff.

From Wikipedia (not the number one source for law but it is concise):

In tort law, the defense of necessity is divided between private necessity (where a person commits a tort for the defense of his own property) and public necessity (where a person commits a tort for the public good, such as cutting down someone else's trees to stop the spread of a fire). Necessity is generally not available as a defense to intentional torts other than "trespass to chattels," "trespass to land," and "conversion." One could, however, envision a scenario in which false imprisonment or battery is excused where the restraint or invasion was found necessary to prevent the spread of disease.

Private necessity: Generally, a person asserting the defense of "private necessity" will remain liable for damages as a result of his or her act; however, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive or nominal damages.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Law is pretty amazing, eh? Didn't realize there was a 'necessity' defense. Wonder what some of the odder tort cases where someone tried to resort to a necessity defense were.

[MNJetter]

Is that what self-defense falls under?

[K2Grey]

Jesus people, you're all arguing over this crap when it doesn't even look like half of you read the article in question. Let me highlight some important passages for you:



Basically the douche boat owner isn't seeking replacement funds for his boat, he's seeking money just to get back at the guy. Then he bitches that Morice didn't "leave a note" even though he came back to explain what happened to the guys boat. Morice did the right thing, he reported that he took the boat, he could have just vanished into the disaster like all the looters.

I disagree. From my reading of the article it appears that the boat owner received half of the value of his boat, and thus lost $12k. And he justifiably does not wish to lose that $12k. Suing Morice is not likely to be the best way to go about this, but I don't see exactly where you are getting the idea that he wants to get back at Morice.

[Riinuka]

Some of you ask why he didn't return the boat. [quote=Article]The Friday after the storm, Morice said, he left the city briefly to recover from a week of trolling the city's streets, "living in fear and sleeping with a shotgun." That day, after delivering 15 people to dry ground on Claiborne Avenue near the Orleans-Jefferson parish line, Morice said he parked the boat there and left it for other rescuers to use. Given the sum-of-all-fears atmosphere at the time, returning the boat "was the farthest thing from my mind," he said.

That's why. (Bolded section.)

[InSo]

Sadly some people in the world don't give a shit about anyone else, only themselves. What a selfish idiot, 200 lives cmon, how the hell can he even think about complaining??!

The lawsuit is just retarded.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

You know, it sounds as if the "majority" would vote for a sort of... "Good Samaritan" law concerning property. This law, as it's usually applied in the US, basically says that a person cannot be sued by giving emergency aid to people who are injured or ill, if the result of the aid giving in good faith makes things worse. I suppose the proprietal extension would be that if something of yours is taken in order to save lives, then the person who took it would be protected from prosecution.
I can't really see how Morris could use nessesity as a defence. He didn't need to save those people, hell, he didn't need to save himself. So he got a boat, and (mostly) secured his own life, because he valued his life more than the boat, and then he rescued other people, because he values human life in general. There isn't anything anybody has to do except die.
I feel mildly torn on this case. I know that if something of mine was taken, even if it was used to save lives, I'd want to know the the circumstances around it, so I could use my own judgement to weigh the factors. (and if something doesn't add up, I'd probably confront the person who took it.) On the other hand, I'm the kind of person that resists immediately when someone says I "have to" do such and such, which is what suing someone strikes me as.
I guess I'll leave it there, for now.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Is that what self-defense falls under?
The necessity defense that erbium referenced is in regards to civil cases, not criminal cases. Therefore there may be a similar defense in criminal law, but tort law, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't carry over into criminal law for the most part.

[MNJetter]

Ah, true. I keep forgetting that it's a civil case, and not a criminal case.

[Cherub Rock]

If I had a boat and someone stole it and did not return it and my insurance would not pay to replace it, I would be pretty pissed too.

I don't care how many lives it saved, at the end of the day I'd still want my boat back. I wouldn't want to make money on it, but if having to cleverly word a lawsuit to get back the money I paid for the boat was what I had to do, then I would just have to be a terrible person.