Rescue at sea for sick baby

[MyBelle]

I was a little skeptical about their intent in the beginning too but no one is that desperate to get rich quick IMO. I did, however, see the potential for them to make money on their story had they realized and admitted that they made a mistake trying to accomplish this trip with two young children in a small old boat that already had issues before they left. They mentioned all these other "cruising families" but not one has come forward to say that they too would have attempted that crossing with two toddlers in a boat the size, age and physical condition of the Kaufman's boat with vague "clearance" from a Mexican doctor after a very serious illness of a one year old baby. Not to mention only one experienced crew member.

So while I don't think calling for a rescue and scuttling the boat was a "scheme" to sell their story once things started to go south on the trip, I do think that in retrospect, it could have been done with a little more humility on their part. They needed a rescue. What they also needed to do was admit their liability in needing that rescue. The USCG and the Navy were never going to charge them for it. Maybe that was the fear they had in admitting any culpability? Or were they just angry at the backlash? Which was a direct result of their own Internet blogs and forum posts on the subject of their lifestyle.

I also wonder who decides to take everything they own, including their home, on a 3000 mile ocean voyage and does not insure it? I'm sure the premiums would have been high but that is the price you pay to "live the dream" IMO. You can't tell me other families out there, especially those with decent boats, are not insured. So this lawsuit, to me, is like someone who does not have home insurance, having a small fire that could have been put out easily to save the home with a phone call to the fire dept to find out if you should use water or an extinguisher to put it out. But the homeownwer only has a cell phone and there is a problem with it or an outage. So you get your family out and the house burns to the ground because you couldn't make a phone call. Is the cell phone company responsible for the cost of replacing the home and your pain and suffering because you didn't have a backup home phone or insurance?

I guess I've just never really understood any of the choices this couple has made, I believe that they alone are responsible for the situation that they find themselves in. I don't think a phone service provider should be financing their retirement in their 30's and their next "live the dream" adventure.

MOO

Does that attorney have any actual paying clients? He actually said a trip to Disneyland was more dangerous? Seriously? I'm pretty sure Disneyland has lotsa people and working phones.

Their radios were out of range....that's on them. It's no different than intentionally hiking with small children into the wilderness out of range of a cell phone or radio. Blaming the phone company for your own lack of common sense really is laughable. These clowns are lucky they had the back-up emergency system to activate. The couple who accidentally got lost in a blizzard in the Pacific Northwest a few years ago would have loved to have had a back-up emergency system available to them. The Daddy died while futilely seeking help for his family. If only he had had an emergency button to push.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

Does that attorney have any actual paying clients? He actually said a trip to Disneyland was more dangerous? Seriously? I'm pretty sure Disneyland has lotsa people and working phones.

Their radios were out of range....that's on them. It's no different than intentionally hiking with small children into the wilderness out of range of a cell phone or radio. Blaming the phone company for your own lack of common sense really is laughable. These clowns are lucky they had the back-up emergency system to activate. The couple who accidentally got lost in a blizzard in the Pacific Northwest a few years ago would have loved to have had a back-up emergency system available to them. The Daddy died while futilely seeking help for his family. If only he had had an emergency button to push.

JMO

Yup! We took DD to Disneyland when she was 3. There are tons of people and security there, even phones, though we have cell phones. What Disneyland doesn't really have is Wi-Fi. When DD went back with band a year ago, we had to get her her own cell phone.

 

[Kamille]

Does that attorney have any actual paying clients? He actually said a trip to Disneyland was more dangerous? Seriously? I'm pretty sure Disneyland has lotsa people and working phones.

Their radios were out of range....that's on them. It's no different than intentionally hiking with small children into the wilderness out of range of a cell phone or radio. Blaming the phone company for your own lack of common sense really is laughable. These clowns are lucky they had the back-up emergency system to activate. The couple who accidentally got lost in a blizzard in the Pacific Northwest a few years ago would have loved to have had a back-up emergency system available to them. The Daddy died while futilely seeking help for his family. If only he had had an emergency button to push.

JMO

Well I suppose if you live in Maine and decide to fly your family to Disneyland in a beat up old used Cessna with makeshift parts and only one of you knows how to fly, with the bare minimum of flight experience, and you're counting on a satelitte phone for any possible ground communication you may have during a mayday situation, I can see the comparison lol. :facepalm:

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Well, I wish them luck. This lawsuit is going to be a long, difficult and almost impossible for them to win. The sat-phone company wasn't responsible for his decision to sink his deteriorating boat. All the lawsuit will bring is more public scrutiny to their incredibly poor parenting decisions.

JMO

You know I've never once criticized their decision to raise their children on a boat and to show them the world. It's the "doing it on the cheap" aspect that I have a problem with. Because that is neither smart nor safe...for anyone, let alone children.

MOO

 

[MyBelle]

You know I've never once criticized their decision to raise their children on a boat and to show them the world. It's the "doing it on the cheap" aspect that I have a problem with. Because that is neither smart nor safe...for anyone, let alone children.

MOO

And I totally agree with you. The boat was too small. My son has one that size and after an hour on Lake Michigan, my husband and I are ready to head to the yacht club and watch the boats. No way are our toddler grand babies allowed on it when it is sailing. The angles it can dip to in the wind are very sharp. I don't know how Lyra was expected to walk and develop her leg muscles in that thing.

IMO

 

[LaLaw2000]

Does anyone know if the lawsuit has actually been filed? The one I read did not have any of the usual stamps by a Clerk of Court indicating it had been filed.

I just don't think there is any way this case will be heard in a courtroom. The lawyer for Eric and Charlotte is absolutely trying this case in the media and to me that indicates he is trying to get a feel from the general public who would become the jury pool. He knows this couple is not well liked because of their choices. I really think he is pushing for and wanting an out of court settlement. It may go to arbitration, IMO.

There is just too much negative information that would come out against Eric and Charlotte that would show this couple decided to sail in a less than perfect boat and circumstances. Their online postings tend to show them both in an unpleasant light at times. IIRC, Charlotte posted once about depression and even suicide. She did not come across as even liking sailing at times. Eric blasted a super nice couple who had to be rescued at sea and was particularly mean about it. There is just too much to even list here.

Eric was just too sure of himself and his sailing abilities, IMO. It is one thing to take courses and spend untold hours repairing a boat for sailing and another to actually sail in rough seas and be the only crew member. This was his dream and he sold Charlotte on it. He had that boat when they met. She should be furious at him for putting those precious babies at risk in a less than sea worthy boat. He had sold her on the idea and she fully supported it, IMO.

Have you ever planned what you thought would be the vacation of your life time and literally spent years dreaming of it, saving for it, and preparing for it? Then comes the big day you start the vacation and realize the anticipation was the best part of it? Somehow I think this was the case for Eric and Charlotte.

Bottom line is that I think Eric was behind the big rescue. I think he realized the boat was about to fall apart and that he was the only one to have to be at attention 24 hours a day to sail it. I believe the decision to leave the boat was made and not because of the baby. Eric was out of his league and finally realized it. I think he and Charlotte got very, very scared they weren't going to make it and their pride/ego wouldn't let them admit it. Charlotte is a talented writer, so she provided a script for them to follow, IMO.

I spent almost an entire day watching sailing videos and know that when you sail in blue water you are inevitably going to run into some rough seas during a crossing. If there is only one person to do the work and sail the boat, it can be a 24 hour a day job. I think Mr. Eric found that maybe the 'dream' was in the anticipation and preparation of it and not the actual work of sailing. Eric is all about fun, not work, IMO.

Sorry to have been so long winded, LOL! I could go on and on but will stop here. I can assure you Eric, Charlotte, and their lawyer would not want me on a jury because my vote would go against them. This case will not go to a jury. I would bet on it. There will be a settlement and not a big one, IMO.

Now I am done. Eric and Charlotte need to get off their respective high horses and just admit they made mistakes and are only human. I don't see this happening, though. Their greatest fault was putting their two small children in very grave danger.

MOO

 

[gitana1]

The complaint:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwtbl9xe3y2qhos/Conformed Complaint.pdf

I reeaaaallly want to hear Gitana's take on this!

Well...I think they may have a chance. That bothers me because I think it's nonsense. But essentially, it appears they may be saying that if they had satellite, they could have determined what was going on with the baby without contacting the Navy, and continued on, I guess repairing the boat?

I really, really hope people have done screen shots of their blog because now that they have counsel, the relevant parts are going to go poof. And the relevant parts prove everything the satellite company would need to defend against the suit.

their lawyer is responding to comments under that article... is that appropriate?

gitana? thnx.

It's allowable. But I read his comments. They seem flip and not helpful. I wouldn't be so casual about a case of mine.

From the link

"Charlotte said Eric knew he couldn’t sail the boat 1,000 miles back to shore on his own, and was forced to scuttle it."

On his own?

As opposed to "with his crew" which consisted of his wife and children???

Why couldn't Eric sail their "home" by himself the 1000 miles????

Roflmao! I really can not stand this couple!!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me either. But I did read elsewhere that it was because without satellite, since the emergency beacon thing can only be pushed once, he would be truly alone.

But I note how they kind of gloss over the fact that his boat wasn't seaworthy anymore anyhow.

Looks like he's arguing his case via comment section on the Internet. Can't say as I've ever seen that before. Doesn't seem very professional or a smart thing to do IMO. I'm assuming his comments can be used against his clients during the trial if they conflict with other evidence that may be presented?

We do need Gitana to answer these legal questions.

Attorney comment aren't evidence so they can;t be used. But they can be used to piss people off and he may be doing that.

Anyone else wonder what they would have done if they had a brand new, bigger and more expensive sailboat, that was not damaged, and they were in the same position with no working satelite phone and no EPIRB? Do you think they would have scuttled that? What decisions might they have made differently?

I still believe that it was the combination of an inappropriate boat for that type of crossing, lack of an extra crew member and an extra satellite phone and either their inability to administer medication or their haste to get away so close to two family members having a serious illness, to make that time allotment for the crossing, that put them in the position they were in which required not only medical assistance for their baby, but a rescue for the entire family. I've seen the pictures of their boat alone in those swells. And of the day they got off the boat. Not to mention Charlottes description of how they were "rescued" and how they all stumbled onto the sturdiness of the Vandegrift. I can't see how that boat would have been safe to continue sailing even if the Navy had been able to help them sort out the satelitte phone issue. In fact, if Lyra had never gotten sick, I still wonder if they would have had to push the EPIRB anyway.


MOO

If they had a better boat, I think that baby would be dead. Nothing was more important than the voyage.

Does anyone know if the lawsuit has actually been filed? The one I read did not have any of the usual stamps by a Clerk of Court indicating it had been filed.

I just don't think there is any way this case will be heard in a courtroom. The lawyer for Eric and Charlotte is absolutely trying this case in the media and to me that indicates he is trying to get a feel from the general public who would become the jury pool. He knows this couple is not well liked because of their choices. I really think he is pushing for and wanting an out of court settlement. It may go to arbitration, IMO.

There is just too much negative information that would come out against Eric and Charlotte that would show this couple decided to sail in a less than perfect boat and circumstances. Their online postings tend to show them both in an unpleasant light at times. IIRC, Charlotte posted once about depression and even suicide. She did not come across as even liking sailing at times. Eric blasted a super nice couple who had to be rescued at sea and was particularly mean about it. There is just too much to even list here.

Eric was just too sure of himself and his sailing abilities, IMO. It is one thing to take courses and spend untold hours repairing a boat for sailing and another to actually sail in rough seas and be the only crew member. This was his dream and he sold Charlotte on it. He had that boat when they met. She should be furious at him for putting those precious babies at risk in a less than sea worthy boat. He had sold her on the idea and she fully supported it, IMO.

Have you ever planned what you thought would be the vacation of your life time and literally spent years dreaming of it, saving for it, and preparing for it? Then comes the big day you start the vacation and realize the anticipation was the best part of it? Somehow I think this was the case for Eric and Charlotte.

Bottom line is that I think Eric was behind the big rescue. I think he realized the boat was about to fall apart and that he was the only one to have to be at attention 24 hours a day to sail it. I believe the decision to leave the boat was made and not because of the baby. Eric was out of his league and finally realized it. I think he and Charlotte got very, very scared they weren't going to make it and their pride/ego wouldn't let them admit it. Charlotte is a talented writer, so she provided a script for them to follow, IMO.

I spent almost an entire day watching sailing videos and know that when you sail in blue water you are inevitably going to run into some rough seas during a crossing. If there is only one person to do the work and sail the boat, it can be a 24 hour a day job. I think Mr. Eric found that maybe the 'dream' was in the anticipation and preparation of it and not the actual work of sailing. Eric is all about fun, not work, IMO.

Sorry to have been so long winded, LOL! I could go on and on but will stop here. I can assure you Eric, Charlotte, and their lawyer would not want me on a jury because my vote would go against them. This case will not go to a jury. I would bet on it. There will be a settlement and not a big one, IMO.

Now I am done. Eric and Charlotte need to get off their respective high horses and just admit they made mistakes and are only human. I don't see this happening, though. Their greatest fault was putting their two small children in very grave danger.

MOO

It has been filed. I saw the conformed copy. Excellent theories you have.
I don't think it will go to arbitration because they would be filing a statement of claim instead of a lawsuit if there was a mandatory arbitration claim. I think. Settlement negotiations, I;m sure, though.

But gosh I really, really hope they don;t make a dime!!!!!!

These people need to go get a job and they should not be allowed to take their babies out to sea again. Next time, one may not make it.

 

[Kamille]

Thanks so much for responding Gitana. I have a question regarding that phone call that they were waiting for from the USCG. Apparently they had spoken with the operator or dispatcher and they claim that this person was going to locate a pediatrician for them to talk to and have that doctor call them back. Now I suppose the entire conversation with that operator will come out at trial so we will know for sure if that is actually what the operator said. Do you or anyone else know if those calls would be recorded like a 911 dispatch call? And does it seem reasonable to assume that a doctor would have called them back and listened to their description of the baby's symptoms, not to mention the fact that they had already spoken with the baby's own doctor who told them to use the antibiotics they had with them, which apparently weren't working, and not have told them to turn around and get the baby back to shore as quickly as possible or to accept a medical rescue from the Navy?

I guess what I'm asking is, will there be evidence at trial of just what they would have been told in a phone call either from a doctor or from the dispatcher had the phone still been working? I would assume the USCG were working on what to do when the EPIRB was pushed. Will we find out what the USCG were going to say to the Kaufman's if the phone was working?

I also wonder what the para rescuers are going to say. They were with them for almost 3 days on the boat. I guess a lot of it will boil down to the evidence of what exactly happened from the time of the phone call, the EPIRB and whether the rescue would have been necessary regardless of whether the phone was working or not. And I suppose only the USCG and the Navy have the answers to that.

MOO

 

[MyBelle]

Well...I think they may have a chance. That bothers me because I think it's nonsense. But essentially, it appears they may be saying that if they had satellite, they could have determined what was going on with the baby without contacting the Navy, and continued on, I guess repairing the boat?

I really, really hope people have done screen shots of their blog because now that they have counsel, the relevant parts are going to go poof. And the relevant parts prove everything the satellite company would need to defend against the suit.



It's allowable. But I read his comments. They seem flip and not helpful. I wouldn't be so casual about a case of mine.



Me either. But I did read elsewhere that it was because without satellite, since the emergency beacon thing can only be pushed once, he would be truly alone.

But I note how they kind of gloss over the fact that his boat wasn't seaworthy anymore anyhow.



Attorney comment aren't evidence so they can;t be used. But they can be used to piss people off and he may be doing that.




If they had a better boat, I think that baby would be dead. Nothing was more important than the voyage.



It has been filed. I saw the conformed copy. Excellent theories you have.
I don't think it will go to arbitration because they would be filing a statement of claim instead of a lawsuit if there was a mandatory arbitration claim. I think. Settlement negotiations, I;m sure, though.

But gosh I really, really hope they don;t make a dime!!!!!!

These people need to go get a job and they should not be allowed to take their babies out to sea again. Next time, one may not make it.

Frankly, I think the children are in danger in their care whether it is on land or sea.

I'm no lawyer but I have plenty of experience working with the telecommunications industry. I think they'll defend a lawsuit such as this one vigorously because it would set an incredible precedent if they won. I doubt the company will settle because they have no incentive to settle and a reputation to protect. This is exactly the type of lawsuit that phone companies pay their lawyers to defend, not settle. If the Kaufman's bounced checks in paying their bill in the past, it will be successfully used against them. I look forward to the phone company's response to the lawsuit. I think the Kaufmans will soon regret filing the lawsuit because of the scrutiny they have invited upon themselves and their ability to parent, which the evidence shows, is poor. These people didn't live in the United States when they started their voyage, they lived in Mexico. So why are they in the middle of International waters calling the United States Coast Guard asking them to connect them to a pediatrician? That doesn't even make sense.

I believe they don't have a chance of winning a dime because the baby required immediate medical care, she received it and it didn't cost them even a dime. A pediatrician couldn't help her over the telephone. If they were on land, they would have been told to call 9-1-1. A doctor's office will tell you to call 9-1-1 if you are trying to reach them after hours and it is a medical emergency. It wasn't the sat phone company's fault their radios were out of range or that the boat was in such poor condition. It was his decision to scuttle the boat. Had nothing to do with whether the sat phone worked. The boat was low on fuel and not seaworthy. To suggest he couldn't sail it because the phone didn't work and the emergency response was no longer available is a bit of a joke, imo. The reason he needed the emergency system was because the vessel wasn't seaworthy and Kaufman was unable to manage it properly. I think the rescuers had no intention of returning to rescue him a second time.

JMO

 

[Kamille]

Well I'm not sure how you can put it all on the phone company when it usually states in every cell or satellite phone contract that the service is not 100 percent guaranteed at all times and that they will not be liable for any losses due to the phone not working. A contract that one of them must have signed. And apparently the Kaufman's also did not feel the need to update their account info with a new forwarding address while living in Mexico which is where the problem originated. If I knew that my cell phone provider could not reach me by mail, I'd at least be contacting them to tell them this. Or if I had no mailing address, I'd have my mail forwarded to a relative on land to read and take care of for me. I would not assume that the company would try to reach me by email or text if I did not respond to a mail out.

The company has issued a response to the media. They contracted a second party company to handle the transition to new sim cards for them. A process that took months to implement. A contracted company that likely only had people's mailing addresses since email addresses are confidential to the company you signed the contract with. I believe only 15 people did not respond to the mail out, and any subsequent notices before the final transition was done. The Kaufman's were one of those 15 people. I guess the other 15 didn't update their mailing info either. Good thing none of them were in the middle of the Pacific in a leaky boat with a sick child when their phones were deactivated.

MOO

 

[gitana1]

Thanks so much for responding Gitana. I have a question regarding that phone call that they were waiting for from the USCG. Apparently they had spoken with the operator or dispatcher and they claim that this person was going to locate a pediatrician for them to talk to and have that doctor call them back. Now I suppose the entire conversation with that operator will come out at trial so we will know for sure if that is actually what the operator said. Do you or anyone else know if those calls would be recorded like a 911 dispatch call? And does it seem reasonable to assume that a doctor would have called them back and listened to their description of the baby's symptoms, not to mention the fact that they had already spoken with the baby's own doctor who told them to use the antibiotics they had with them, which apparently weren't working, and not have told them to turn around and get the baby back to shore as quickly as possible or to accept a medical rescue from the Navy?

I guess what I'm asking is, will there be evidence at trial of just what they would have been told in a phone call either from a doctor or from the dispatcher had the phone still been working? I would assume the USCG were working on what to do when the EPIRB was pushed. Will we find out what the USCG were going to say to the Kaufman's if the phone was working?

I also wonder what the para rescuers are going to say. They were with them for almost 3 days on the boat. I guess a lot of it will boil down to the evidence of what exactly happened from the time of the phone call, the EPIRB and whether the rescue would have been necessary regardless of whether the phone was working or not. And I suppose only the USCG and the Navy have the answers to that.

MOO

I don;t know if those calls are recorded. I hope so.

Frankly, I think the children are in danger in their care whether it is on land or sea.

I'm no lawyer but I have plenty of experience working with the telecommunications industry. I think they'll defend a lawsuit such as this one vigorously because it would set an incredible precedent if they won. I doubt the company will settle because they have no incentive to settle and a reputation to protect. This is exactly the type of lawsuit that phone companies pay their lawyers to defend, not settle. If the Kaufman's bounced checks in paying their bill in the past, it will be successfully used against them. I look forward to the phone company's response to the lawsuit. I think the Kaufmans will soon regret filing the lawsuit because of the scrutiny they have invited upon themselves and their ability to parent, which the evidence shows, is poor. These people didn't live in the United States when they started their voyage, they lived in Mexico. So why are they in the middle of International waters calling the United States Coast Guard asking them to connect them to a pediatrician? That doesn't even make sense.

I believe they don't have a chance of winning a dime because the baby required immediate medical care, she received it and it didn't cost them even a dime. A pediatrician couldn't help her over the telephone. If they were on land, they would have been told to call 9-1-1. A doctor's office will tell you to call 9-1-1 if you are trying to reach them after hours and it is a medical emergency. It wasn't the sat phone company's fault their radios were out of range or that the boat was in such poor condition. It was his decision to scuttle the boat. Had nothing to do with whether the sat phone worked. The boat was low on fuel and not seaworthy. To suggest he couldn't sail it because the phone didn't work and the emergency response was no longer available is a bit of a joke, imo. The reason he needed the emergency system was because the vessel wasn't seaworthy and Kaufman was unable to manage it properly. I think the rescuers had no intention of returning to rescue him a second time.

JMO

I really hope you're right and the satellite company doesn't settle. I tend to agree with you on that. They should have more money for a suit than the Kaufmans (as well as in-house counsel as you state), so I hope they work a quick and ruthless defense.

Bouncing checks has nothing to do with the issue here because it is not the reason the service was cut off. So it is unlikely to be used against the Kaufmans.

I don;t think the Kaufmans will regret filing the lawsuit. They are 100% without shame, and totally stubborn, entitled, angrily defensive, demeaning and dismissive of anyone with concerns. They don;t care what anyone thinks. We are all boring, frightened losers in their eyes.

I do think the baby needed immediate medical care but they are arguing that she just needed her medication dispensed properly, or some nonsense, and to make sure all was okay with the child. So the baby's health status is pivotal to the case and their ability to recover.

let me clarify that when I say that I think they may have a case, that doesn't mean I think they will win. It means that they probably won't be able to file a successful demurrer (to stop the complaint before it goes forward, in essence). Ultimately, I tend to think they won't recover, unless it is a small amount via settlement.

Well I'm not sure how you can put it all on the phone company when it usually states in every cell or satellite phone contract that the service is not 100 percent guaranteed at all times and that they will not be liable for any losses due to the phone not working. A contract that one of them must have signed. And apparently the Kaufman's also did not feel the need to update their account info with a new forwarding address while living in Mexico which is where the problem originated. If I knew that my cell phone provider could not reach me by mail, I'd at least be contacting them to tell them this. Or if I had no mailing address, I'd have my mail forwarded to a relative on land to read and take care of for me. I would not assume that the company would try to reach me by email or text if I did not respond to a mail out.

The company has issued a response to the media. They contracted a second party company to handle the transition to new sim cards for them. A process that took months to implement. A contracted company that likely only had people's mailing addresses since email addresses are confidential to the company you signed the contract with. I believe only 15 people did not respond to the mail out, and any subsequent notices before the final transition was done. The Kaufman's were one of those 15 people. I guess the other 15 didn't update their mailing info either. Good thing none of them were in the middle of the Pacific in a leaky boat with a sick child when their phones were deactivated.

MOO

And that is why the satellite company will likely cross complain against the third party contractor.

 

[MyBelle]

I don;t know if those calls are recorded. I hope so.



I really hope you're right and the satellite company doesn't settle. I tend to agree with you on that. They should have more money for a suit than the Kaufmans (as well as in-house counsel as you state), so I hope they work a quick and ruthless defense.

Bouncing checks has nothing to do with the issue here because it is not the reason the service was cut off. So it is unlikely to be used against the Kaufmans.

I don;t think the Kaufmans will regret filing the lawsuit. They are 100% without shame, and totally stubborn, entitled, angrily defensive, demeaning and dismissive of anyone with concerns. They don;t care what anyone thinks. We are all boring, frightened losers in their eyes.

I do think the baby needed immediate medical care but they are arguing that she just needed her medication dispensed properly, or some nonsense, and to make sure all was okay with the child. So the baby's health status is pivotal to the case and their ability to recover.

let me clarify that when I say that I think they may have a case, that doesn't mean I think they will win. It means that they probably won't be able to file a successful demurrer (to stop the complaint before it goes forward, in essence). Ultimately, I tend to think they won't recover, unless it is a small amount via settlement.



And that is why the satellite company will likely cross complain against the third party contractor.

Thanks. I think it more likely the third party contractor's lawyers will join the sat phone lawyers in enjoying a few cocktails while drafting a response to the inane lawsuit. They are used to frivolous lawsuits filed by fools who think the phone company would rather settle than fight.

These parents are reminding me of Balloon Boy's.

JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks. I think it more likely the third party contractor's lawyers will join the sat phone lawyers in enjoying a few cocktails while drafting a response to the inane lawsuit. They are used to frivolous lawsuits filed by fools who think the phone company would rather settle than fight.

These parents are reminding me of Balloon Boy's.

JMO

Agree, but these parents IMO are far worse!
Balloon boy never left the ground!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redheadedgal]

eric recently tweeted that some radio station had made a song about him to the tune of "gilligan's island" ... someone please capture and post it to you tube ! :guitar:

https://twitter.com/CaptEricKaufman/status/490287089217724416

 

[JerseyGirl]

Charlotte Kaufman says the family took with them a satellite phone that Eric had bought from Whenever at a store in Point Lorna months before they set sail. Just under two weeks before they began their around-the-world trip, Whenever charged a monthly fee of $240 from the Kaufman's account.

"Whenever's knowledge that persons (signatories and non-signatories) using their phones would be in distant and remote locations, and therefore dependent upon the phones not being wrongfully deactivated, was confirmed by Whenever, in a statement to the press after the Kaufmans were rescued at sea, in which they denied having deactivated the Eric's SIM card: 'We would never do that. These phones are used for emergency purposes by 80 percent of our customers. Legally, I could not do that,'" the 6-page lawsuit states.

But Kaufman says Whenever deactivated the SIM card at a time when Lyra had a fever and was vomiting. Kaufman says that after her baby daughter failed to respond to antibiotics, Eric Kaufman phoned the Coast Guard, which told him that a doctor would call back. "That call was never returned because Whenever deactivated the SIM card, leaving the phone operable only to the extent it could display a 'SIM card error' on the screen. That same day, April 3, 2014, Whenever again charged the debit card on file," the lawsuit states.

The boat had "slammed onto its side and then righted itself," U-T San Diego reported, and at the time of the emergency was taking on 60 to 70 gallons of water each day. The Kaufmans, however, believed that on-board pumps could cope with the problem and allow them to continue their journey.

But Kaufman says the family was left with no choice but to activate the beacon. Four California National Guardsmen were parachuted into the sea and used a lightweight inflatable boat to rescue the family, treating Lyra with antibiotics from the Kaufman's own supplies. When the Navy ship USS Vandegrift arrived to assist the Kaufmans three days later, Lyra's condition was beginning to improve, according to the complaint.

"(T)elephone communication with the Coast Guard physician would have allowed the Kaufmans to successfully treat Lyra, and not have activate the EPIRB," the complaint states. "Eric made the decision that Charlotte and the two children would return to San Diego on the USS Vandegrift. Since Eric could not continue the voyage alone, he was forced to scuttle the Rebel Heart, and returned with his family to San Diego."

The lawsuit names nominal defendants Eric Kaufman, California and the United States as "indispensable" parties.

Kaufman seeks compensatory, general, special, and exemplary damages and costs.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/07/17/69572.htm

bbm

 

[MyBelle]

Charlotte Kaufman says the family took with them a satellite phone that Eric had bought from Whenever at a store in Point Lorna months before they set sail. Just under two weeks before they began their around-the-world trip, Whenever charged a monthly fee of $240 from the Kaufman's account.

"Whenever's knowledge that persons (signatories and non-signatories) using their phones would be in distant and remote locations, and therefore dependent upon the phones not being wrongfully deactivated, was confirmed by Whenever, in a statement to the press after the Kaufmans were rescued at sea, in which they denied having deactivated the Eric's SIM card: 'We would never do that. These phones are used for emergency purposes by 80 percent of our customers. Legally, I could not do that,'" the 6-page lawsuit states.

But Kaufman says Whenever deactivated the SIM card at a time when Lyra had a fever and was vomiting. Kaufman says that after her baby daughter failed to respond to antibiotics, Eric Kaufman phoned the Coast Guard, which told him that a doctor would call back. "That call was never returned because Whenever deactivated the SIM card, leaving the phone operable only to the extent it could display a 'SIM card error' on the screen. That same day, April 3, 2014, Whenever again charged the debit card on file," the lawsuit states.

The boat had "slammed onto its side and then righted itself," U-T San Diego reported, and at the time of the emergency was taking on 60 to 70 gallons of water each day. The Kaufmans, however, believed that on-board pumps could cope with the problem and allow them to continue their journey.

But Kaufman says the family was left with no choice but to activate the beacon. Four California National Guardsmen were parachuted into the sea and used a lightweight inflatable boat to rescue the family, treating Lyra with antibiotics from the Kaufman's own supplies. When the Navy ship USS Vandegrift arrived to assist the Kaufmans three days later, Lyra's condition was beginning to improve, according to the complaint.

"(T)elephone communication with the Coast Guard physician would have allowed the Kaufmans to successfully treat Lyra, and not have activate the EPIRB," the complaint states. "Eric made the decision that Charlotte and the two children would return to San Diego on the USS Vandegrift. Since Eric could not continue the voyage alone, he was forced to scuttle the Rebel Heart, and returned with his family to San Diego."

The lawsuit names nominal defendants Eric Kaufman, California and the United States as "indispensable" parties.

Kaufman seeks compensatory, general, special, and exemplary damages and costs.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/07/17/69572.htm

bbm

If someone could post a link to any lawsuit filed and successfully won over the last 150 years where a phone company has been ordered by a court to reimburse the cost of a home because the phone didn't receive an incoming call, I'd love to see it. Thanks.

 

[Lilibet]

eric recently tweeted that some radio station had made a song about him to the tune of "gilligan's island" ... someone please capture and post it to you tube ! :guitar:

https://twitter.com/CaptEricKaufman/status/490287089217724416

I wonder why he would even tweet about being made fun of on national radio! (Could it have been Howard Stern?)

Funny that no one even bothered to reply and sympathize with him.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I wonder why he would even tweet about being made fun of on national radio! (Could it have been Howard Stern?)

Funny that no one even bothered to reply and sympathize with him.

Karma

I recall reading blog posts of his where he did the same....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kamille]

I wonder why he would even tweet about being made fun of on national radio! (Could it have been Howard Stern?)

Funny that no one even bothered to reply and sympathize with him.

Well someone who might be considered a little narcissistic would likely announce any "claim to fame" to anyone who may be paying them some attention, negative or otherwise.

MOO

 

[Lilibet]

Well someone who might be considered a little narcissistic would likely announce any "claim to fame" to anyone who may be paying them some attention, negative or otherwise.

MOO

:goodpost: You are really good at reading between my lines.