So I run a dock & a paying user comes to harm ...

[superheat6k]

Why don't we show them the 'hazard'?

I feel it fair to allow the organisation an opportunity to consider and address their obligations to users of their facility. If as I have suggested they do this, then I will be the first to congratulate them on here for their positive actions. I reiterate I do not want the facility withdrawn for use of others, but they do need to acknowledge and address this hazard. I won't be returning regardless of the outcome.

 

[MrB]

You must have reviewed the dock prior to you using it to see if it is suitable for your needs? Were there no warning notes on the website/literature that told you of the danger? Personally, i would just chalk it up to an accident and use it as an excuse to buy a better phone. I feel your pride was hurt in this case more than yourself, glad you are ok though so no harm done.

 

[BruceK]

No - I simply and coldly explained what had happened, indeed as is required by their published rules for using the dock. All my fault according to them.

Aye, and then retired gracefully to preserve what's left of your dignity. Nothing about recompense and new phone etc etc. Best course of action :encouragement: No point in highlighting your shortcomings is there?

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Is this some kind of threat? Your first post on this thread seemed to indicate you had knowledge of where this occurred. Are you linked to the dock owner?

No, I know exactly where it happened because the OP mentioned it in another (now edited) thread. I'm not a member of that club, but if I was I would be even more annoyed by his refusal to admit his part in this. It's flipping obvious where the concrete ends.

 

[guernseyman]

The issue, whether for insurance or legal purposes, is that of negligence.
I would suggest that the OP was arguably negligent by not advising the user, by notice or word of mouth, of the safe extent of the dock.

 

[sarabande]

It is pretty evident that the dock owner has not carried out an effective risk assessment, and not undertaken mitigatory actions to prevent or minimise the consequences of someone falling off the end of the slab, whether it's covered by water or not..

Having read this sad tale, I shall be aware, if I ever use a similar scrubbing facility, of such a danger, so this thread has been a useful lesson. It is, however, distasteful to read some posts with implied threats of blackballing the OP for having the 'temerity' to go public with his experience; the consequences of falling into the river could have been far more serious, and that is something the owners of the dock should take into consideration when a soggy boat owner appears in their office with a complaint.

 

[Aardee]

Well as you were not their and have not seen the hazard you should perhaps reserve your comments.

Eh? - I thought you were asking for advice. If you're limiting it to people that were there at the time it'll be a pretty short thread.

I'm also in the "file under shit happens" camp.

 

[benjenbav]

Similar, but hypothetical: YC members club together to hire a crane and a good old boy to lift their boats. One is a bit out of scope for the crane but Bob reckons it’ll be ok. He’s been lifting marginal loads since Adam was a lad, mostly without any problems. This time someone’s pride and joy goes for a burton and insurers won’t touch the claim. They say it was reckless to lift in this way.

The owner reflects ruefully that, although his boating days are done - he can’t afford the rebuild, he did save a few bob last year.

 

[rafiki_]

And exactly how did you approach the owner of the dock when demanding your pound of flesh? I'm sorry, you almost certainly went in with a hissy fit and when you didn't get what you wanted were doubly wounded by the rebuff. I'm sorry for your accident but at 40 years experience I am sure that 20 years ago you'd seen it as trivial. In fact I am convinced of it. Do not go quietly into that good night. Time to roar like a lion again eh? Man up and get on with it.

As you clearly don't know Trevor, then making pointed statements about his behavior's are a bit odd. This is not a personal vendetta by Trevor, purely an attempt to get a service provider to recognise their responsibilities, and to try and minimise the risk of another even more serious event in the future.

 

[BruceK]

As you clearly don't know Trevor, then making pointed statements about his behavior's are a bit odd. This is not a personal vendetta by Trevor, purely an attempt to get a service provider to recognise their responsibilities, and to try and minimise the risk of another even more serious event in the future.

No I dont. But from what I can make out these are the points.

A tidal drying dock is always going to have some drop off into deeper water to give a user time to do any work before the tide returns.
A punter should at least do a passing survey of the dock at low water to see where he is going to rest, where the drop off is, etc, so that exposed vulnerable parts such as shafts and props etc are not rested upon and where to tie up etc.
Having done this the punter should be well aware exactly where the drop off is.
If he failed to do this and steamed in like it was a Tesco parking lot then the owner was quite correct in apportioning blame.
If he did survey and then forgot in an idle moment where he lost concentration he's still a muppet, but it's forgivable.
What is not forgivable is the blame and claim ethos, nor the underhand method by which the OP broached his question. I am sure he is a fine gentleman but in this instance has let himself down.
All conjecture of course but we can only go on what he has given us.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

It is pretty evident that the dock owner has not carried out an effective risk assessment, and not undertaken mitigatory actions to prevent or minimise the consequences of someone falling off the end of the slab, whether it's covered by water or not..

Having read this sad tale, I shall be aware, if I ever use a similar scrubbing facility, of such a danger, so this thread has been a useful lesson. It is, however, distasteful to read some posts with implied threats of blackballing the OP for having the 'temerity' to go public with his experience; the consequences of falling into the river could have been far more serious, and that is something the owners of the dock should take into consideration when a soggy boat owner appears in their office with a complaint.

It wasn't a threat of anything, just an observation on how I'd expect to be treated by what is a fairly small community.

What seems to be missing is a unanimous acceptance of the fact that boaters have to be in the habit of continuously assessing risks for themselves - which doesn't stop the moment you put a foot onto terra firma.

 

[[2068]]

Personally, I'd prefer to be made aware of non-obvious hazards in advance so I can make sensible decisions.

"400v in this cabinet."
"6ft drop into the Hamble here."
"Beware of the Leopard".

If I had been the dock owner, I think I would have apologised that the mishap had occurred without admitting liability, and I would have agreed to improve the signage from the water side. An explanatory briefing somewhere along the way might also have helped.

All this stuff about SOLAS / MCA and passage planning is hilariously irrelevant - where do they get that from?

As to the phone, have a check to see if it's covered by a policy somewhere, e.g. some bank accounts come with phone cover of some sort, house insurance, etc.

.

 

[rafiki_]

No I dont. But from what I can make out these are the points.

A tidal drying dock is always going to have some drop off into deeper water to give a user time to do any work before the tide returns.
A punter should at least do a passing survey of the dock at low water to see where he is going to rest, where the drop off is, etc, so that exposed vulnerable parts such as shafts and props etc are not rested upon and where to tie up etc.
Having done this the punter should be well aware exactly where the drop off is.
If he failed to do this and steamed in like it was a Tesco parking lot then the owner was quite correct in apportioning blame.
If he did survey and then forgot in an idle moment where he lost concentration he's still a muppet, but it's forgivable.
What is not forgivable is the blame and claim ethos, nor the underhand method by which the OP broached his question. I am sure he is a fine gentleman but in this instance has let himself down.
All conjecture of course but we can only go on what he has given us.

Bruce, you are making a number of assumptions here. I repeat, Trevor to my reading is not "making an ambulance chasers claim". He merely wants the dock owner to carry out a proper risk assessment, and rectify any obvious deficiencies in his processes for renting out the dock. Recovering the cost of his phone is part of this. Trevor does not want any other users to fall foul in a worse case than his.

 

[BruceK]

Trevor has admitted in his original post he did not survey or make adequate inspection of the facility or media information beforehand. Trevor admits he used the facility like a Tesco parking bay. Trevor is a muppet and now wants to apportion blame. Trevor should man up, admit his mistake, have a good laugh and get on with it because nobody is making a stink about this but Trevor.

 

[Montemar]

It is interesting to speculate on what would have happened if Superheat6k had actually drowned.
The HSE would have become involved and I wonder what their conclusions would have been.
Presumably the drying dock is part of a business which has responsibilities towards its customers so I imagine the HSE would become involved and after a death probably not taking any prisoners.

 

[BruceK]

It is interesting to speculate on what would have happened if Superheat6k had actually drowned.
The HSE would have become involved and I wonder what their conclusions would have been.
Presumably the drying dock is part of a business which has responsibilities towards its customers so I imagine the HSE would become involved and after a death probably not taking any prisoners.

Here we have Conwy Quays. Notice the drop off is about 20 foot when tide is out. Notice there are no railings or guards.

Most importantly though, please note the general, uninitiated populace have the good sense to keep clear of the drop off. To date there have been no numpties. It's wonderful.

 

[[2068]]

Here we have Conwy Quays. Notice the drop off is about 20 foot when tide is out. Notice there are no railings or guards.

Most importantly though, please note the general, uninitiated populace have the good sense to keep clear of the drop off. To date there have been no numpties. It's wonderful.

Yes, but that’s an obvious hazard.
Trying to figure out where a platform ends in muddy water isn’t so obvious.

 

[BruceK]

Yes, but that’s an obvious hazard.
Trying to figure out where a platform ends in muddy water isn’t so obvious.

Two answers to this. Take a pick

a)You cant see so step boldly where angels fear to tread.

b)You didn't do a minimal survey before parking your shaft driven pride and joy on the slabs.

 

[NormanS]

Surely anyone venturing into muddy water, where they can't see where their feet are going, has a duty of care for their own safety. The OP is no exception.

 

[BruceK]

Surely anyone venturing into muddy water, where they can't see where their feet are going, has a duty of care for their own safety. The OP is no exception.

Aye, you'd think. But in the "real world" the farmer got done for lack of signage and ruining the vicar's date