QUESTION PRESENTED
Does Mr. Moore a experienced sailor, have a valid claim for wrongful death against the Coast Guard for the death of his wife based upon the Coast Guard’s one-hour delay in reaching the boat after he made a distress call asking for rescue due to the bad weather conditions?
BRIEF ANSWER OR CONCLUSION
Probably not. Under the Good Samaritan doctrine applicable to this case the Coast Guard probably won’t be liable for wrongful death since there are not omissions of failure to act, neither affirmative actions from its part causing Mrs. Moore’s death.
FACTS
James More and his wife Theresa, two experienced sailors misjudging the weather went sailing in the Channel Island. High winds and Rain made Mrs. More to call the U.S. Coast Guard asking for rescue, other vessels began to approach The Moores’ boat, then the sailboat capsized and trapped Theresa Moore causing her death by drowning before the Coast Guard reached the boat. Mr. Moore wants to sue the Coast Guard for his wife 's wrongful death, base in that even evidence shows that it takes 20 minutes from the closest Guard station to reach the accident 's place they reached it with one hour delay. DISCUSSION To be successful in a claim for wrongful death against the Coast Guard, Mr. Moore has to prove that the Coast Guard is liable for his wife 's death. The Code of Civil Procedure in section 377.60., determines that a cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted for the surviving spouse. The statute implies some requirements; the cause of the death has to be, the wrongful act or neglect of another. The Coast Guard does not have the duty to undertake all rescue operation. The United States Code Service section 88(a)(1) is clear when states that the Coast Guard "may" perform all acts necessary to rescue and aid persons but the statute does not order that, so the general rule defines that the Coast Guard was under no obligation to provide the rescue services demanded. However, once the coast Guard undertakes rescue it owes a Good Samaritan duty of care and it is subject to liability only if the position of the party being rescue was worsened by the Coast Guard action, or if its causes the parties being rescue to detrimentally rely on the Coast Guard 's efforts. (Albinder v. U.S., 703 F. Supp. 246, 1988 A.MC. 2582 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). In order to conclude that the position of the party being rescue was worsened by the Coast Guard and consequently to impose liability to the Coast Guard, it is required …show more content…
Mrs. Moore needs to prove the material fact that the risk of the physical harm to his wife was increased by the Coast Guard’s negligence. In Sagan v. U.S., 342 F. 3d 493, 2003 (OJOOO VERIFICAR CITATION). The case law teaches that the test is not whether the risk was increased over what it would have been if the defendant had not been negligent, but rather whether the risk was increased over what it would have been if the defendant not engage in the undertaking at all. In the present case is clear that the action of the Coast Guard does not worsened Mrs. Moore situation because she already was death when the rescuer arrived, even more by the moment in which the Coast Guard began its rescue operation the boat had already capsized according with the …show more content…
In regard of this point Mr. Moore included in his story that other vessels in the Channel Island area began to approach the Moores’ boat, however the facts don’t show that the persons in those vessels approached with the intention of being rescuers and assuming that it was the intention, there is no evidence that they effectively arrived to the capsized boat and that the Coast Guard’s rescue made them to leave the rescue works. The above implies that the Coast Guard rescue attempt never reached the stage where those vessel were induced to cease their efforts in the belief that the rescuer had the situation under control since those potential efforts didn’t even
Does Mr. Moore a experienced sailor, have a valid claim for wrongful death against the Coast Guard for the death of his wife based upon the Coast Guard’s one-hour delay in reaching the boat after he made a distress call asking for rescue due to the bad weather conditions?
BRIEF ANSWER OR CONCLUSION
Probably not. Under the Good Samaritan doctrine applicable to this case the Coast Guard probably won’t be liable for wrongful death since there are not omissions of failure to act, neither affirmative actions from its part causing Mrs. Moore’s death.
FACTS
James More and his wife Theresa, two experienced sailors misjudging the weather went sailing in the Channel Island. High winds and Rain made Mrs. More to call the U.S. Coast Guard asking for rescue, other vessels began to approach The Moores’ boat, then the sailboat capsized and trapped Theresa Moore causing her death by drowning before the Coast Guard reached the boat. Mr. Moore wants to sue the Coast Guard for his wife 's wrongful death, base in that even evidence shows that it takes 20 minutes from the closest Guard station to reach the accident 's place they reached it with one hour delay. DISCUSSION To be successful in a claim for wrongful death against the Coast Guard, Mr. Moore has to prove that the Coast Guard is liable for his wife 's death. The Code of Civil Procedure in section 377.60., determines that a cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted for the surviving spouse. The statute implies some requirements; the cause of the death has to be, the wrongful act or neglect of another. The Coast Guard does not have the duty to undertake all rescue operation. The United States Code Service section 88(a)(1) is clear when states that the Coast Guard "may" perform all acts necessary to rescue and aid persons but the statute does not order that, so the general rule defines that the Coast Guard was under no obligation to provide the rescue services demanded. However, once the coast Guard undertakes rescue it owes a Good Samaritan duty of care and it is subject to liability only if the position of the party being rescue was worsened by the Coast Guard action, or if its causes the parties being rescue to detrimentally rely on the Coast Guard 's efforts. (Albinder v. U.S., 703 F. Supp. 246, 1988 A.MC. 2582 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). In order to conclude that the position of the party being rescue was worsened by the Coast Guard and consequently to impose liability to the Coast Guard, it is required …show more content…
Mrs. Moore needs to prove the material fact that the risk of the physical harm to his wife was increased by the Coast Guard’s negligence. In Sagan v. U.S., 342 F. 3d 493, 2003 (OJOOO VERIFICAR CITATION). The case law teaches that the test is not whether the risk was increased over what it would have been if the defendant had not been negligent, but rather whether the risk was increased over what it would have been if the defendant not engage in the undertaking at all. In the present case is clear that the action of the Coast Guard does not worsened Mrs. Moore situation because she already was death when the rescuer arrived, even more by the moment in which the Coast Guard began its rescue operation the boat had already capsized according with the …show more content…
In regard of this point Mr. Moore included in his story that other vessels in the Channel Island area began to approach the Moores’ boat, however the facts don’t show that the persons in those vessels approached with the intention of being rescuers and assuming that it was the intention, there is no evidence that they effectively arrived to the capsized boat and that the Coast Guard’s rescue made them to leave the rescue works. The above implies that the Coast Guard rescue attempt never reached the stage where those vessel were induced to cease their efforts in the belief that the rescuer had the situation under control since those potential efforts didn’t even