Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/22/2008 10:40:14 PM

I m in Maine for the summer and have been following this trial. The case is with the jury and i will post the verdict. This is NOT intended to begin a BIG boat discussion.

"During the six days of testimony in the manslaughter trial of Robert LaPointe, Maine's boating laws have emerged as a focus of debate.

Prosecutors have said that LaPointe's violations of those laws – including allegations that he was drunk and going too fast – make him criminally responsible for the deaths of two people in a boat crash on Long Lake.

LaPointe's attorneys say that he was not intoxicated and that he operated his boat carefully at all times.

Terry Raye Trott, 55, of Harrison and Suzanne Groetzinger, 44, of Berwick died when Trott's boat was run over by LaPointe's boat around 9 p.m. on Aug. 11, 2007.

For those who are following the trial in Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland, the testimony has raised questions about what the regulations are for boaters in Maine, and who is responsible for enforcing them.

LaPointe, 39, of Medway, Mass., is charged with manslaughter, aggravated drunken driving and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon. The state says LaPointe's blood alcohol content was 0.11 percent when it was taken three hours after the crash. Maine's legal limit for operating a car or a boat is 0.08 percent.

LaPointe's lawyers have questioned the reliability of the blood test.

As the trial has unfolded, defense lawyers have suggested that Trott's apparent violations of boating laws caused the crash. A boat reconstruction expert called by the state testified that Trott's rear "all-around" light was not working as required by law and he might not have had a proper sounding device on his motorboat.

Maj. John Fetterman, deputy chief of the Maine Marine Patrol, said Maine's Boat Law is based on the rules laid out in the federal Boat Safety Act of 1971. Those rules are maintained and updated by the U.S. Coast Guard, and they are known as the Inland Navigation Rules, "Nav Rules" for short.

Most states, including Maine, have updated their laws to reflect changes in the federal rules, Fetterman said.

The Maine Warden Service is responsible for enforcing the law on Maine's lakes and ponds, and the Marine Patrol is responsible for enforcement along the coast, with some overlap between the two agencies. County district attorney's offices prosecute criminal violations of the law.

The Warden Service investigated the crash on Long Lake last summer, and the state has called several wardens to testify in LaPointe's trial.

At the time of the crash, LaPointe was operating his 32-foot Sunsation Dominator, named No Patience, with twin 425-horsepower engines.

He and a passenger, Nicole Randall, were heading north on the lake en route to the Harrison Marina, which is owned by Randall's parents.

Trott was operating a 14-foot Glasspar runabout, named Sting Raye, equipped with a 115-horsepower outboard. Trott and his girlfriend, Groetzinger, had gone out to watch the Perseids meteor shower.

William Chilcott, a boat reconstruction expert, and Warden Kevin Anderson testified that both LaPointe and Trott apparently violated boating rules.

Both witnesses said that because LaPointe was the one coming up from behind, his duty to avoid a collision outweighed the duty Trott had to maintain proper lighting.

Chilcott and Anderson said LaPointe's unsafe speed was the cause of the crash.

Fetterman, the outgoing president of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, said investigators often have to determine cause and assign fault in cases in which multiple boaters violate safety laws.

Wardens and Marine Patrol officers investigate an average of 12 to 15 recreational boating fatalities each year, Fetterman said.

LaPointe's speed has come up repeatedly in the trial. In a recorded interview with a warden, LaPointe said he was going about 45 mph. Other witnesses estimated his speed at between 40 and 65 mph.

There are no speed limits for boats under Maine law. And most lakes, including Long Lake, do not have horsepower restrictions.

Local restrictions for specific bodies of water can be approved, through the state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Instead of speed or horsepower limits, the law requires boaters to operate "at a reasonable and prudent speed for existing conditions," and to avoid collisions. Prosecutors and LaPointe's lawyers disagree on whether he obeyed that law.

For lighting, Trott was required to have a green light on the front right side of his boat and a red light on the front left side.

Those lights had to be visible from at least one mile in clear conditions on a dark night. He was also required to have a white "all-around" light on the rear of his boat, which would be visible from at least two miles.

During the trial, some witnesses have said they saw no lights on Trott's boat. Another witness testified that he saw the green and red lights.

Chilcott told jurors that he inspected the all-around light on Trott's boat and that he does not believe it was working, based on the condition of the filament.

Several witnesses have said that all of LaPointe's navigational lights were working.

The rules required LaPointe to have a bright white light at the front of his boat and a white all-around light at the rear, as well as the green and red side lights toward the front of the vessel."

Name:	CAT BOAT -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/23/2008 10:24:28 PM

So, if I read that correctly... (Copy and paste want work for some reason) The boat that got ran over had NO lights at all? I don't want to have a Big Boat Ban issue/conversation per say..... But, if ya' go out in the dark, I think you need lights. A Bass Boat could have ran over another if coming from behind and approaching a boat with no lights. Maybe I am missing something here.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/23/2008 10:43:10 PM

The jury has been behind closed doors since noon Monday and no verdict as of Tuesday evening. They will continue their deliberation Wed AM.

Name:	Pier Pressure -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/24/2008 4:30:54 PM

§ 32-5A-192. Violations; homicide; operation of vehicle under the influence
(a) Whoever shall unlawfully and unintentionally cause the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any state law or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle, or vessel, as defined in Section 33-5-3, or to the regulation of traffic or boating, shall be guilty of homicide when the violation is the proximate cause of the death.

Contributory negligence means that regardless of the fact that the person may have had no lights on, could have been completely at-fault in normal situations, it stands to reason that the person who is intoxicated is at fault, even if normal situation merrits them to be innocent. The law is clear.

So, I still do not know where the size of the vessel makes any difference. You can get hit by a baseball and die from the impact. Size and speed has nothing to do with whether or not a fatality can occurr. Perhaps more property damage, but I still say there are laws in place that would have stopped mostly all of the fatalities I have heard of over the last few years (mainly BUI, navigation lights, etc.). BUT, you can't regulate common sense. Swiming in a well traveled area at night, or stopping a boat in a well traveled area at night when you aren't lit up like a christmas tree. Personal accountability should come into play somewhere.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Funny PP
Date:	9/24/2008 4:46:54 PM

He said "Personal accountability" .. hehehe, where do you think you are - the past?

Name:	Pier Pressure -	Reply
Subject:	Funny PP
Date:	9/24/2008 4:49:32 PM

Either way, I don't think the dead person can learn a lesson. I may live in a state of denial, but I still say don't drive/walk through the Ghetto at night then complain about stray bullets and muggers.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Verdict
Date:	9/24/2008 5:52:36 PM

Jurors this afternoon convicted Robert LaPointe of two counts of aggravated drunken operation of a watercraft for his role in a boat crash that killed two people on Long Lake in Harrison last summer. But the jury was deadlocked and returned no verdict on the charges of manslaughter and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.

LaPointe, 39, of Medway, Mass., was charged in Cumberland County Superior Court with two counts of manslaughter, two counts of aggravated drunken driving and one count of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.

District Attorney Stephanie Anderson will have the option to recharge LaPointe on the manslaughter and reckless conduct charges. Anderson wasn't immediately available for comment on her plans.

Sentencing for the aggravated drunken driving convictions is set for 1 p.m. Nov. 12. Aggravated drunken driving is a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Name:	4thelake -	Reply
Subject:	Verdict
Date:	9/25/2008 6:41:38 AM

Bet they use this case law here. Its understandable in our current legal system. The man will go to prison but wont be labeled a murder. Dont know how you can say its a win win but its still the best system in the world.

Name:	Kizma Anuice -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/25/2008 8:26:05 AM

you state:
Contributory negligence means that regardless of the fact that the person may have had no lights on, could have been completely at-fault in normal situations, it stands to reason that the person who is intoxicated is at fault, even if normal situation merrits them to be innocent. The law is clear.

WHAT DOES CN AND FAULT HAVE TO DO IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL?

Name:	Kizma Anuice -	Reply
Subject:	Verdict
Date:	9/25/2008 8:27:36 AM

what "case law" are you referring to?

Name:	Pier Pressure -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/25/2008 10:37:56 AM

§ 32-5A-192. Violations; homicide; operation of vehicle under the influence
(a) Whoever shall unlawfully and unintentionally cause the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any state law or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle, or vessel, as defined in Section 33-5-3, or to the regulation of traffic or boating, shall be guilty of homicide when the violation is the proximate cause of the death.

My intrepretation is that his CN was driving while intoxicated. Since if he weren't driving, and intoxicated, he wouldn't have been at the scene to have caused an unintentional death. While this is obviously used in civil actions to defing fault, does it not stand to reason that the text above describes an act which is unlawful, hence criminal? His violation of the law is a proximate cause of death. If he was not driving drunk, there would have been no death?? Please tell me how I am wrong. Are jurrors not advised what a law reads before they decide if someone is guilty?

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Funny PP
Date:	9/25/2008 11:15:37 AM

I fully agree with you, and if I am forced to travel in places that I consider dangerous, I do so with as much preparation as I can. This is not however, the way most people think.

Name:	Kizma Anuice -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting Trial
Date:	9/25/2008 2:53:29 PM

it has always been my understanding that contributory negligence, was a common law concept used as a defense in a negligence action brought in tort. I am unfamiliar with the use of such in criminal law.

in addition most states have abandoned "contributory negligence" in favor of comparative negligence, but last I knew Alabama retained "contributory negligence"

having said that, the term "proximate cause" was also a concept from tort law. if I remember correctly from what was the proposed ALI restatement III Torts, it was determined that "proximate cause" was such an inprecise term that it should be changed to a scope of liability concept.

there were two landmark cases that dealt with this and they were either Kinsman or Kingsman Transit I and II and had to do with the what damages were actionable. a bridge got wrecked and a river blocked resulting in all sorts of chain reactions.

eventually you get to the point of the butterfly effect. as in if the butterfly had not flapped his wings would the tornado have hit a different house?

the term proximate cause was used in the statute as stated and may subject that statute to a Constitutional challenge as being "void for vagueness"

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos