Tuna Boat vs fishing boat

Keep your head on a swivel…always. @onyxoutdoor ????Cred: @zeikel.fishing #closeone

A post shared by Jacob Wheeler (@wheelerfishing) on Jan 17, 2018 at 6:22am PST

Texting? Wide open lake/river too. Nice reaction from the fisherman.

Gotta link?

The link doesn’t show up very well but its there above the text. It takes you to an Instagram page, the video is the one with the two guys in the boat. Worth watching, scary stuff.

Im guessing it was this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhsYPVEinBE

Yep, that’s the one.

How fricken scary would that be.

Here’s another beaut

Try this?

Keep your head on a swivel…always. @onyxoutdoor ????Cred: @zeikel.fishing #closeone

A post shared by Jacob Wheeler (@wheelerfishing) on Jan 17, 2018 at 6:22am PST

Sorry about the link I’m new to this posting links from instagram

That is insane. I can’t believe that boat didn’t end up on the bottom but I suppose the tuna boat’s momentum made it kind skip up over the top.

That took place on the Columbia River and they were in a Weldcraft. Those boats are tough as nails.

It’s not going to be a fun day in court for the tuna boat operator. Both of the guys in the boat are LEO’s and they’re typically very good at giving testimony.

Hunting4Walleyes wrote:

and they’re typically very good at giving testimony.

And two gopro videos help as well.

Not to demerit the 2 guys in the smaller boat but it mention that they were standing up waving there arms why not start the motor and try and move?

Tom P. wrote:

Not to demerit the 2 guys in the smaller boat but it mention that they were standing up waving there arms why not start the motor and try and move?

If you watch the video they wouldn’t have had time.

Tuna boat wins on water,fishing boat wins in court.They are lucky they bailed at the right time.

“A fisherman who jumped ship into bone-chilling water to dodge a speeding motorboat has filed a $372,500 lawsuit, alleging the other driver was distracted by his cellphone just before the dramatic crash caught on video.

Bryan Maess filed the suit earlier this month against Marlin Lee Larsen, 75, over the Aug. 12 crash near the mouth of the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean, the Oregonian reports.

A GoPro camera mounted to Maess’ 20-foot fishing boat captured the chaos in the seconds before Larsen’s 31-foot motorboat crashes into the smaller, stationary vessel. A passenger on Maess’ boat frantically waves his arms and repeatedly screams “Hey!” in a desperate attempt to get the driver’s attention.
“Oh my God,” another passenger screams just before the trio leap into the chilly water.

The video — which was later posted to Facebook — shows the moment the speeding motorboat plows into Maess’ fishing vessel.

Deputies in Clatsop County and the US Coast Guard responded to the crash in the Columbia River near Tansy Point and found significant damage to the fishing boat. Maess and his two passengers, Christopher McMahon and Roni Durham, managed to jump from the fishing boat just before the crash and were later treated for non-life-threatening injuries, according to the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office.

Drugs and alcohol did not appear to be a factor in the crash, deputies said. Larsen was cited for reckless operation, three counts of reckless endangerment and three counts of fourth-degree assault.

Larsen told investigators he couldn’t see where he was driving since he was sitting down. Larsen, who uses a motorized scooter on land, admitted that he probably should’ve been standing at the time, according to a sheriff’s report obtained by the Oregonian.

Larsen’s son-in-law, who was also on the boat at the time, told investigators that he occasionally saw Larsen using his cellphone while driving the boat. State law bans cellphone use while driving, but there are no specific laws governing cellphone use while boating.

Larsen has denied using his cellphone while driving the motorboat, claiming that allegations to the contrary were “fake news,” according to the Oregonian. He has pleaded not guilty as his criminal case unfolds.

Investigators said Maess and his passengers likely dodged serious injury or death by leaping into the water. More than five months after the crash, Maess, who is a police officer, continues to suffer vision problems, headaches and injuries to his ankle, leg and arm, according to the suit.

McMahon and Durham have yet to file lawsuits against Larsen, although they’ve hired attorneys to do so. Attorney Josh Lamborn said Durham suffered psychological trauma during the crash and hasn’t been able to return to the water since August.”

Link to New York Post

munchy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hunting4Walleyes wrote:</div>
and they’re typically very good at giving testimony.

And two gopro videos help as well.

Absolutely!

It amazes me that he plead not guilty. He must think highly of his lawyers abilities.

I’m surprised they’re suing him for using this cell? If he can prove by phone records he wasn’t on the phone, he’s off the hook.

Inattentive would be much easier to prove. But then I don’t know the laws in that state.

Hunting4Walleyes wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Munchy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hunting4Walleyes wrote:</div>
and they’re typically very good at giving testimony.

And two gopro videos help as well.

Absolutely!

It amazes me that he plead not guilty. He must think highly of his lawyers abilities.

Didn’t you see he called it “fake news”? Case closed!

I agree but I think the son-in-law’s statement leads me to believe there was something going on. They’ll go though every last byte on that phone so we’ll see.

I read another story on this that quoted the tuna boat driver saying something along the lines of he shouldn’t have to pay anything as no one was hurt “real bad”. I don’t think this idiot even realizes a couple feet one way this could have been a triple fatality.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I’m surprised they’re suing him for using this cell? If he can prove by phone records he wasn’t on the phone, he’s off the hook.

Inattentive would be much easier to prove. But then I don’t know the laws in that state.

I don’t think he’s suing him for something that specific? There is no need to. It’s a civil case, so the standard is set lower than a criminal case. I think we have a case of sloppy journalism here. They just need to prove negligence I assume.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I’m surprised they’re suing him for using this cell? If he can prove by phone records he wasn’t on the phone, he’s off the hook.

Inattentive would be much easier to prove. But then I don’t know the laws in that state.

I don’t think the entire suit would necessarily have to hinge on that fact. I’m not a lawyer (holiday inn, yadayada) but I don’t think the cause of his mistake would matter nearly as much the results. He’s not being sued for using a phone, he’s being sued for causing an accident that brought physical and emotional trauma on 3 people.

Liars Lawyers on the forum can feel free to correct that if it’s off-base. (relax i’m just poking fun)

Pug, Here’s a quote from a newer article.

Bryan Maess filed the suit against Marlin Lee Larsen, accusing him of boating while distracted by his cell phone. But Larsen denies the allegations and told investigators he couldn’t see over the dash of his boat because he was sitting down. The 75-year-old uses a motorized scooter when he’s on land.

How about a fisherman run over by a jet ski?

In a civil case you need to prove negligence. I’m pretty certain which way this will go.

In the criminal case he was charged with reckless operation which means they need to prove that he willing operated the boat in a manner that endangered others. It can be tough to prove that he did it willfully and is typically fought in court vs pleading guilty. You can’t tell that from the video.

I’m really surprised those guys were LEOs. I would’ve though they would wear their life jackets.

I’m going to be buying another inflatable for my boat this year.

Sadly I bet many of us have been very near that situation before. Especially if you fish the st croix. Stay alert at all times.

I’m really surprised those guys were LEOs. I would’ve though they would wear their life jackets.

[/quote]

Not surprising to me. Got checked 2 years ago on a WI lake by 2 CO. We were wearing our pfd’s and everything was in order. I asked, when they were about to leave us, why they didn’t have their jackets on. Wow! They got very cranky in a hurry. I was told you don’t have to wear them, just have to have them in the boat. I mentioned not a very good example for them to be setting. Thought they were gonna come back and write me up for something.

mxskeeter wrote:

I’m really surprised those guys were LEOs. I would’ve though they would wear their life jackets.

Not surprising to me. Got checked 2 years ago on a WI lake by 2 CO. We were wearing our pfd’s and everything was in order. I asked, when they were about to leave us, why they didn’t have their jackets on. Wow! They got very cranky in a hurry. I was told you don’t have to wear them, just have to have them in the boat. I mentioned not a very good example for them to be setting. Thought they were gonna come back and write me up for something.
[/quote]

Ballllsy but appropriate to me. If the point is not just to be legal, But to stay alive in an emergency situation, then those guys were doing a pretty poor job of leading by example.

Regardless of setting an example the point is these guys see first hand what can happen if you don’t wear it. Most people don’t really know how and how often people die from not wearing it.

The WDNR runs tv and radio ads stating to wear your PFD and to have the correct size. To me DNR employees should wear their pfd. It should be mandatory in my opinion.

biggill wrote:

n the criminal case he was charged with reckless operation which means they need to prove that he willing operated the boat in a manner that endangered others. It can be tough to prove that he did it willfully and is typically fought in court vs pleading guilty. You can’t tell that from the video.

Hunting4Walleyes wrote:

and told investigators he couldn’t see over the dash of his boat because he was sitting down.

Unless somebody forced him to sit down and drive when he couldn’t see, Sounds like he willing endangered others.

Claiming “I couldn’t see” is not a defense and only serves to prove that by continuing forward, when you can’t see if the pathway is clear, you are operating without regard to others safety.

Huntindave wrote:

Unless somebody forced him to sit down and drive when he couldn’t see, Sounds like he willing endangered others.

Claiming “I couldn’t see” is not a defense and only serves to prove that by continuing forward, when you can’t see if the pathway is clear, you are operating without regard to others safety.

Law and common sense are not the same thing. Just because someone didn’t force him to do it doesn’t prove he had intent. Google reckless driving. Reckless driving is tough to prove in court unless it is absolutely clear he did it with intent. That’s why he is fighting it and that’s all I’m saying.

I’m pretty sure you leave your weapons and common sense outside the courtroom.

One attorneys website recommend to always plead not guilty to reckless driving because it is difficult to prove.