Boat owner drops lawsuit, Man took it to rescue victims of Katrina

[uppityperson]

I am very glad he has dropped this and I would be glad to have Mark Morice as a friend orneighbor.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1157697414239090.xml&coll=1

John Lyons Jr. has decided not to pursue his lawsuit against a Broadmoor man who said he rescued more than 200 residents from post-Katrina floodwaters after commandeering Lyons' boat.

On Tuesday, Lyons' attorney, E. Ronald Mills, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit seeking payment for direct and indirect costs "attributable to the actual conversion of the boat and motor," as well as for "grief, mental anguish, embarrassment and suffering of the petitioner due to the removal of the boat and motor." In a written statement, Lyons referenced the "media frenzy" surrounding the lawsuit against Mark Morice and explained that the turnabout will allow Lyons "to redirect my energy back to rebuilding my home and my neighborhood.

"The big issue here is not the monetary damages that I incurred from the loss of the boat," he wrote. "It is about holding people responsible for their actions. Does a natural disaster give an individual the right to break into private property, take possessions of others, not return them and then have no responsibility to the rightful owner? If this becomes a precedent, then we, the citizens, will ultimately pay the price."

Lyons said he too was a victim of Hurricane Katrina and that he evacuated 10 people from a flooded home, including several elderly women and a young child. "To complete this evacuation, I borrowed a pirogue and personally paddled these people eight blocks through fallen trees to dry ground. After numerous trips back and forth, when everyone was out and safe, I waded back through chest-deep floodwater to return the pirogue to the owner's home."...more@link

[Selatius]

1. People have a natural right to expropriate equipment/land in the name of..

survival. This has been repeated often in war zones where power vacuums exist without functioning governments. The largest examples occured in Spain during the Civil War when large swaths of land fell under worker control. Factories and farmland and equipment were abandoned in the chaos, and the workers left behind used them in collective communes to survive.

[silverweb]

10. Yup.

I'm reminded of an article a couple of years ago about a guy who sued because during a wildfire that threatened nearby homes, a tanker aircraft took water from his lake to fight the fire. The pilot apparently wasn't from the area, needed water, saw the lake, and filled up a few times. In a situation like that, who's going to find the owner and ask permission?

Anyway, the guy who owned the lake had a hissyfit because no one asked his permission. He sued the government for "damages" and it wound up in court before some agreement was reached. If I remember correctly, I think the government ended up paying the guy an amount based on the estimated number of gallons "stolen" from the lake. Paying him back for the water was fair, I guess, as long as his lake wasn't refilled for free anyway by Mother Nature via springs and/or streams in the area -- but I don't remember reading anything at all about that. The hissyfit for not asking permission first was what got me.

What struck me as really funny was a subsequent exchange between two people I know *cough* (Libertarian brother) *cough* *cough* (RW mother) *cough* who were highly incensed and absolutely adamant that the evil government (firefighters) had no right to take that water until and after a negotiated agreement had been signed. Like the wildfire was going to hold back and wait, right?

:eyes:

When life/property are in imminent danger, the right to use immediately available resources to save them is assumed. Period. You settle up later, if possible and reasonable.

On edit: Oh, yeah... I just remembered a major twist in the story. The guy had been arrested because he fired a rifle or shotgun at the aircraft. Certain people mentioned above thought he was fully justified in trying to shoot the plane down for "stealing" his water and his suing for payment was basically a countersuit of the charges against him. They should have let the old fart rot in jail, as far as I'm concerned.

[rpannier]

2. Embarassment????

Kind of a stretch.

To his question about the "big issue" my answer is yes. In a disaster if you have property that can be used to save the lives of other people then that property needs to be used for that purpose.

[uppityperson]

4. yeah, I don't get why he is embarrassed

he should be angry with the insurance companies for not giving him full price (join the ranks of home, car, boat and other property owners that have been shafted).

[babylonsister]

3. Thank you, uppityperson! A nice end instead of the

mess it was going towards.

[Kagemusha]

5. The bottom line is that the plaintiff would've lost.

Or well, should have, if the defendant had competent legal counsel.

If he didn't notice, Katrina was a NATIONAL DISASTER. It was an emergency situation where lives hung in the balance and during which people did indeed lose their lives, and many were saved from losing their lives precisely because emergency actions were taken.

And more pointedly, I can understand the monetary damages, but the sob story over how the loss of a boat used to save 200 people's lives warranted grief, mental anguish and embarassment, which would have been avoided had those 200 people been left stranded to waste away and die, is insulting.

[uppityperson]

7. I wonder if he'd been embarrassed by the bodies?

Seems more embarrassing having done what he did. He should go after insurance company.

[IChing]

6. I am glad to hear that I posted that story Originally in LBNs

Cause I thought it stunk of injustice.

[beyurslf]

8. He should be embarrassed at having filed the suit in the first place

[pitohui]

9. yeah really

what was his problem?