A boater, caught in a sudden storm and reasonably fearing that her boat would capsize, drove the boat up to a pier, exited the boat, and tied the boat to the pier. The pier was clearly marked with "NO TRESPASSING" signs. The owner of the pier ran up to the boater and told her that the boat could not remain tied to the pier. The boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier. Regardless, over the boater’s protest, the owner untied the boat and pushed it away from the pier. The boat was lost at sea.

Is the boater likely to prevail in an action against the owner to recover the value of the boat?

A. No, because the owner told the boater that she could not tie the boat to the pier.
B. No, because there was a possibility that the boat would not be damaged by the storm.
C. Yes, because the boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier.
D. Yes, because the boater was privileged to enter the owner’s property to save her boat.

Question

09-10-2024
Law

College

We appreciate your visit to A boater caught in a sudden storm and reasonably fearing that her boat would capsize drove the boat up to a pier exited the boat. This page offers clear insights and highlights the essential aspects of the topic. Our goal is to provide a helpful and engaging learning experience. Explore the content and find the answers you need!

A boater, caught in a sudden storm and reasonably fearing that her boat would capsize, drove the boat up to a pier, exited the boat, and tied the boat to the pier. The pier was clearly marked with "NO TRESPASSING" signs. The owner of the pier ran up to the boater and told her that the boat could not remain tied to the pier. The boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier. Regardless, over the boater’s protest, the owner untied the boat and pushed it away from the pier. The boat was lost at sea.

Is the boater likely to prevail in an action against the owner to recover the value of the boat?

A. No, because the owner told the boater that she could not tie the boat to the pier.
B. No, because there was a possibility that the boat would not be damaged by the storm.
C. Yes, because the boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier.
D. Yes, because the boater was privileged to enter the owner’s property to save her boat.

Answer :

Other Questions

Post-WWII 1950 Abstract Expressionism - Pure feeling was wanted to be brought

Select the correct answer.Simplify the expression [tex]\(-4x^2(3x-7)\)[/tex].A. [tex]\(-12x^3-28x^2\)[/tex] B. [tex]\(-12x^3-28\)[/tex] C. [tex]\(-12x^3+28x^2\)[/tex]

The length of a rectangle is five times its width. If the

Study the Political Cartoon and then answer #1 and 2 Explain the

Fisher and his classmates measure their heart rates after running 5 laps

1. Due to the rising cost of electricity, the Thule household wants

Subtract by breaking apart: 143 - 79

What is a snood? 1. The loose skin under a male turkey's

What special characteristics must a heating wire have?

Kids can teach parents new things. Select one: A. True B. False

turnner663 turnner663 · Answer 1 · 2024-12-17T13:27:15-05:00

Answer: (D) Yes, because the boater was privileged to enter the owner's property to save her boat.

Explanation: Boaters are generally privileged to enter another person's property to save their boat in an emergency situation, such as when caught in a sudden storm and reasonably fearing that the boat would capsize. In this scenario, the boater had the right to tie her boat to the pier in order to prevent it from being lost at sea. The owner's actions in untying the boat and pushing it away from the pier, despite the boater's protest, may be considered a violation of the boater's right to save her property.

The fact that the pier was marked with "NO TRESPASSING" signs and that the boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier would not necessarily prevent the boater from recovering the value of the boat. The boater's right to save her property in an emergency situation would likely take precedence over the owner's property rights in this scenario.

It's worth mentioning that the outcome of a legal case depends on the specific circumstances and laws of the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. It would be advisable to consult with an attorney specialized in maritime and property law to better analyze the case and predict the outcome of the suit.