Surfing Waves

"A surfer who drops in without intent to cause harm, but injures another surfer, will not be held legally responsible. That’s the precedent that has been set in California."

https://www.theinertia.com/surf/california-judge-surfers-who-drop-in-arent-legally-responsible-for-injuries-they-cause/

My view...If I drop in on someone and ride without a leash (as the defendant did in this case) then I should be responsible. What say you?

I think of it kinda like being at 4 way stop sign, in a car. If you blast through the intersection without looking first.. it doesn't really matter if you had intent to cause harm.. it's still negligent either way

Surfing is hazardous. One of the hazards is other surfers. I come from a time where no one wore a leash so other boards were a hazard from far away and you never paddled out inside of anyone else. It didn't really say that the surfer was injured because there was no leash but sort of assumed the leash was a safety device but other surfers can be injured by boards on leashes as well especially in a drop in situation. I never saw not wearing a leash as a hazard. Maybe it's like playing football. You might get injured by other players but unless they were intentionally trying to injure you it's not against the law.

Living outside the US with a legal system rife with situational interpretation I can’t expect much governmental support any time soon. I like it that way generally speaking; would consider myself a libertarian more than anything and believe the government intrudes enough into people’s lives as ut is.

In terms of this it is tricky; if a person droos in, purposely or not, creates a dangerous situation that results in injury and/or property damage, this ruling says it is not their responsibility- $hit happens basically. So if a person were to respond with physical aggression, traditional localism style lineup policing which I agree with if meted fairly, that person would open themselves up to legal action in an age where everything is caught on video.

Anyway, I’m with Bo…..I think a reckless person should be held accountable for their actions. A couple of my usual spots we are still able to enforce that but not as well as it used to be done…..it’s like fighting the tide with a bucket.

I'm worried that this decision sends the wrong message. "Don't worry about getting sued if you cause an injury."

I am concerned that the leash is considered a safety device yet in the situation of a drop in where both surfers are in the same area and if they are wearing leashes both boards will be in the same area making it more likely to cause injury where in the case of no leashes both boards will usually be rapidly swept out of the area where the two surfers are. That whole concept is disturbing to me. Leashes are a convenience not a safety device. They actually make it more likely that you will get hit by your own board as well as anyone else close by because the board will not be swept out of the area by the wave.

Looking at the idea of liability for injuries you cause. I don't see how this can be resolved in any fair manner other than having police in the lineup arrest anyone causing problems. I think it might be a good thing if they can just take all the beginners and throw them out of the lineup as they are hazardous to everyone else. But then where will the beginners go? Other than that you have to be responsible to avoid others who might injure you just like it is right now.

"So if a person were to respond with physical aggression, traditional localism style lineup policing which I agree with if meted fairly, that person would open themselves up to legal action in an age where everything is caught on video."

Never ceases to amaze and horrify me that people or corps just so willingly narc on others like that. Seems like a Stalinist wet dream. Soviet style systems could only dream of that kind of enthusiastic public participation in mass surveillance.

Anyway, to add a twist with a leash/leg rope I'm curious how ditching boards at crowded spots is handled? Just as bloody dangerous.
Only ever surfed without a leash once. I didn't have one at that moment, was anxious to try out a new board, it was small junk, no one was out, and I'm idiot. Never did it again, but certainly picked my waves carefully for fear of even the chance of hurting someone or if we're brutally honest, greater fear of damaging the new board

Since I come from the age of no leashes I still think no one should paddle inside of another surfer so that if they lose their board it won't hit you either with or without a leash and if they are riding a wave you won't be in their way. What's the difference between ditching a board and having it torn out of your grip? There is a way to ditch your board without it going anywhere unless the waves are very huge. You can ditch it then swim down and forward till your leash is tight so that it doesn't go anywhere. That often works better for me than trying to hold the board. Again it is intent though and in my opinion you shouldn't be anywhere that a board would hit you if it was ditched

I meant the crowded, largely unregulated breaks that the majority of us increasingly have to surf at. As others have pointed out here, any sort of 'order' I guess we'll try to call it, can't/isn't being imposed. I also suspect basic safety isn't either, in the sense that safety practices/etiquette aren't being passed down as much, or just as likely the sorts of people that drop in also don't care if ditching a board in big and small surf alike harms another person. Maybe a lot to be said here about the loss of social stigma the label "kook" used to have too. Wouldn't dare ditch a board, drop in, etc., for fear of being labelled that. Now I think with the crowds and absent core locals or peers regulating a lineup, there's no real penalty anymore.
Interesting point about accidental loss of grip vs. intentional ditching. I suspect that would come down to witnesses legally, or situational interpretation as Geezer put it.

The reason I mention that is that I have a very weak grip. It's often safer for me to abandon the board and swim to the end of the leash rather than hopelessly trying to hold on. Back before leashes you learned to hang onto your board. I could rarely be parted from my board. I remember one wave where I hung on to the while the wave pulled my board turning it in a large nose to tail underwater somersault pulling me along with it and my grip was near the nose so I was kind on in a position of the board over the top of my head and holding it near the nose being pulled along in a big circle as the board somersaulted. Once the wave let me go I noticed that I had put pressure dings in the rail where I was holding it. Quite a far cry from the board easily ripping it out of my hands these days. I do a half duck dive in most breaking wave encounters where I can use my legs to hang on to the board and that works well except in larger waves where I have to ditch the board to keep control of it.

oldmansurfer wrote:There is a way to ditch your board without it going anywhere unless the waves are very huge. You can ditch it then swim down and forward till your leash is tight so that it doesn't go anywhere. That often works better for me than trying to hold the board.

Good on you. I never thought of doing that!

oldmansurfer wrote: In my opinion you shouldn't be anywhere that a board would hit you if it was ditched

Agree. It's important to anticipate danger 360° while keeping an eye on the waves. At crowded spots this can mean waiting to paddle out or finding another break.

What does that law say if the person who "drops in" gets a board or fin to the back of their head ? Can the person who dropped in, sue the rider who was already on the wave, for damages to his body/board ?

waikikikichan wrote:What does that law say if the person who "drops in" gets a board or fin to the back of their head ? Can the person who dropped in, sue the rider who was already on the wave, for damages to his body/board ?

Based on the reporting I would guess no...

The principle reason the court sided with the defendant was due to the “primary assumption of risk doctrine,” which “precludes liability for injuries arising from those risks deemed inherent in a sport.”