Kevin O’Leary on Boat Involved in Fatal Crash on Lake Joseph

[SchlongConery]

Don't know if the "other boat" was lit or not. Putting that aside for the moment.

I thought it was illegal to operate a boat and consume alcohol. Any alcohol. You can't head out to the lake to fish, pop a cold one while you fish and then drive back. 0 alcohol.

I do not believe for 1 nano second the BS story of someone handed her a drink to calm her nerves and she pounded it down. Please. She must think people are fucking stupid.

You can operate a pleasure craft having consumed alcohol, provided you are not impaired by it and/or not over 80 BAC. It is not a zero consumption activity like flying a plane or operating a commercial vessel, bus etc.

You cannot consume or have an open container of alcohol on a boat unless it is your "residence" and at anchor. So, a yacht or boat with sleeping, toilet, cooking facilities is ok to drink on when at anchor.

Ski boats, bass boats etc do not have sleeping, eating and toilet accomodations so do not qualify as a residence, even at anchor. So no sitting out on your boat fishing, suntanning etc with open container of alcohol by anyone on board.

And I agree that the drink to calm her nerves after is bs. Many drunk drivers try this story, especially after an accident. They whip out a bottle f something and guzzle it down to try to mask their previous drinking.

 

[SchlongConery]

If it wasn't clear before, it is now, this charlatan is a sociopath.

If you listen to anything he has to say you'll end up financially like Julius Caesar - not the conqueror, the poor schmuck on the Senate floor.

I just took 10 minutes and watched that entire video. I thought he gave very good, prudent, supportive advice to each person. What exactly do you take exception to? What exactly did he say or do to suggest he is a sociopath?

I get it that you, and others do not like him. But you obviously just went to www.givemesomethingtoprovemyprejudice.com to find an (off-topic) headline to express vitriolic prejudice.

This surprises me coming from you considering your wonderful recognition of the beautiful soul of Kylie Flavell.

 

[GameBoy27]

And I agree that the drink to calm her nerves after is bs. Many drunk drivers try this story, especially after an accident. They whip out a bottle of something and guzzle it down to try to mask their previous drinking.

Probably BS, but even if she did have a drink after the collision, before the breath test, it wasn't enough to put her over 80, nor did they charge her with impaired. Therefore not criminal. You can question whether people should have any alcohol whatsoever and drive, but the test showed she was below the legal limit.

You raise a good question, "how could no-one hear the boat driven by Mrs. O'leary?"

Dunno.

But I do know that sound is a very unusual thing. For example, I know for 100 percent certainty that if you are standing right on railway tracks and there is an approaching train, you won't hear it. Not one bit, nothing. It's like they are silent. It's a weird effect. Be standing off in the distance and you will hear that locomotive pulling. Stand on the tracks and you won't hear anything but the crickets until that locomotive is right on top of you and you have about 1 second to get out of its way.

Maybe boats are the same.

The Doppler Effect, which explains how sound changes pitch based on an observer's location relative to the sound's origin (the reason sirens sound different as they approach you), played a role. For the same reason people get hit by trains walking along the tracks. They don't hear it coming.

 

[GameBoy27]

Update: https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...n-oleary-was-driving-speedboat-in-fatal-crash

I like how they keep referring to it as their "speedboat" which is laughable.

A screenshot of security video showing Linda O'Leary, wife of celebrity investor Kevin O'Leary, driving their speedboat to a neighbour's cottage on the evening of a fatal boat crash. Kevin is in a black shirt, Linda in blue jeans and a white top and Allison Whiteside, an O'Leary family friend, is in red top. PHOTO BY COURT EXHIBIT

I heard there's a video from a neighbour's cottage. It shows the lights on O'Leary's boat as it was traveling across the lake, then their boat stops. At that point, the other boat suddenly lights up, as the passengers turn on the flashlights on their cell phones. This pretty much confirms the star-gazers were stopped in the middle of the lake with their lights off.

Because there will be a lawsuit, the reason O'Leary hired a top lawyer is to mitigate the amount he's sued for. The maximum fine his wife would be on the hook for, if found guilty, is peanuts compared to what they could be sued for in a civil suit. Thus, they'll be doing everything they can to prove Linda was not at fault. Which I believe to be the case.

Moral of the story, don't stop your boat in the middle of a lake, on a moonless night and turn off your nav lights. That's just asking for trouble.

 

[silentkisser]

Update: https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...n-oleary-was-driving-speedboat-in-fatal-crash

I like how they keep referring to it as their "speedboat" which is laughable.

A screenshot of security video showing Linda O'Leary, wife of celebrity investor Kevin O'Leary, driving their speedboat to a neighbour's cottage on the evening of a fatal boat crash. Kevin is in a black shirt, Linda in blue jeans and a white top and Allison Whiteside, an O'Leary family friend, is in red top. PHOTO BY COURT EXHIBIT

I heard there's a video from a neighbour's cottage. It shows the lights on O'Leary's boat as it was traveling across the lake, then their boat stops. At that point, the other boat suddenly lights up, as the passengers turn on the flashlights on their cell phones. This pretty much confirms the star-gazers were stopped in the middle of the lake with their lights off.

Because there will be a lawsuit, the reason O'Leary hired a top lawyer is to mitigate the amount he's sued for. The maximum fine his wife would be on the hook for, if found guilty, is peanuts compared to what they could be sued for in a civil suit. Thus, they'll be doing everything they can to prove Linda was not at fault. Which I believe to be the case.

Moral of the story, don't stop your boat in the middle of a lake, on a moonless night and turn off your nav lights. That's just asking for trouble.

This is probably true. I'm no lawyer, but the burden of proof for a civil trial is much lower than a criminal one. She could be found not guilty and still get his with a massive civil penalty. Mind you, Canadian courts tend to be less generous with these types of awards, so it'll still be interesting to see what happens.

 

[mandrill]

This is probably true. I'm no lawyer, but the burden of proof for a civil trial is much lower than a criminal one. She could be found not guilty and still get his with a massive civil penalty. Mind you, Canadian courts tend to be less generous with these types of awards, so it'll still be interesting to see what happens.

Yes, that could happen.

But if she is found guilty at a criminal trial, the plaintiff could argue that result creates an unshakeable precedent in the civil trial.

 

[GameBoy27]

Yes, that could happen.

But if she is found guilty at a criminal trial, the plaintiff could argue that result creates an unshakeable precedent in the civil trial.

Which is exactly why it's important for her not to be convicted in this case.

 

[SchlongConery]

This is probably true. I'm no lawyer, but the burden of proof for a civil trial is much lower than a criminal one. She could be found not guilty and still get his with a massive civil penalty. Mind you, Canadian courts tend to be less generous with these types of awards, so it'll still be interesting to see what happens.

In a civil tort ligation, (ie: the injured suing the O'Leary's) there is no civil "penalty" per se. There is an award of damages intended to financially compensate the victim(s)

Having said that, if the (civil) Court finds there was particularly egregious wrongful conduct, the Court may award "Exemplary" (Punitive) Damages to deter future conduct.. Which is as close to a "Civil Penalty" as there is, AFAIK.

Here is an interesting summary of types of damages in civil litigation. https://www.hosseinilaw.com/types-of-damages-in-civil-litigation/

And as Mandrill pointed out, once a Criminal Court has determined guilt, Civil Courts regard it as a matter of fact. The only thing to argue is how much are the damages.

I don't know whether a conviction of careless operation of a vessel under the Canada Shipping Act would also create the same "fact" in civil litigation.

When I think about it, it would seem that even if she were convicted of the charge of Careless Operation, that in a civil trial, the fact of her carelessness might only be 25% or 50% of the cause of the accident which led to the damages.

So let's say that the family of the (passenger) Uxbridge mother sued for their loss. They would likely sue Linda O'Leary as the operator of the boat, the registered owner of the boat she was operating (maybe the boat is in Kevin's name or whomever) , the operator of the Pontoon Boat, and the owner of the pontoon boat. The Court would then decide who is responsible for what portion of the damages.

So it is possible that even if Linda was careless, but for the negligence of the operator/owner of the unlit pontoon boat, there would have been no accident... it may be that the unlit boat operator/owner could be on the hook for 75% or more of whatever damages the Court established.

Finally, once such an accident has occurred, the Liability Insurance of the boat's owner (and maybe even the personal umbrella liability coverage of Linda/Kevin's homeowner/cottage insurance) takes over the civil aspect of the case as they are the one's who may be on the hook for the damages.

Personally, I have a $5 million dollar personal liability endorsement on my homeowner insurance. So if I break Kyle Lowry's ankle by accidentally hitting him with my shopping cart in Dollarama, I'm covered up to $5 mil! Costs me an extra $200 a year I think. well worth the peace of mind.

 

[SchlongConery]

Yes, that could happen.

But if she is found guilty at a criminal trial, the plaintiff could argue that result creates an unshakeable precedent in the civil trial.

She was charged and is being tried under The Canada Shipping Act. No criminal charges were laid.

 

[JackBurton]

I read that his wife is being charged under the Canada Shipping Act. That’s a pretty slippery move, ballsy too since the stiffest penalty is just a fine.

Rich people walk. They always do, that’s why they pay millions for the best lawyers.

it’s a shitty system we live in. A gross injustice will be done when the case is dismissed on a technicality.

 

[poker]

I read that his wife is being charged under the Canada Shipping Act. That’s a pretty slippery move, ballsy too since the stiffest penalty is just a fine.

Rich people walk. They always do, that’s why they pay millions for the best lawyers.

it’s a shitty system we live in. A gross injustice will be done when the case is dismissed on a technicality.

What did she do wrong exactly?

I have been out on Lake Nippissing at night.... it's scary. Can't see shit.

The other boat powered down and turned off their lights off to star gaze... probably thought no other boats would be on the lake... but that was dumb, and dangerous.

 

[JackBurton]

What did she do wrong exactly?

I have been out on Lake Nippissing at night.... it's scary. Can't see shit.

The other boat powered down and turned off their lights off to star gaze... probably thought no other boats would be on the lake... but that was dumb, and dangerous.

She killed two people. Not sure if you have read the article that’s printed in the news?

Sure it was an accident, that’s why manslaughter is a charge.

Mark my words: the O’Leary’s will walk. Rich, connected people never go to jail. It’s how our corrupt system works.

 

[Jenesis]

She killed two people. Not sure if you have read the article that’s printed in the news?

Sure it was an accident, that’s why manslaughter is a charge.

Mark my words: the O’Leary’s will walk. Rich, connected people never go to jail. It’s how our corrupt system works.

Kevin isn’t apart of this so it is not the “O’Leary’s” walking on this.

The question is did SHE kill two people or did the negligent second boat owner kill the 2 people?

If the latter, should the other guy be charged with negligent homicide? Do we have that in Canada? I don’t know. We have to something similar.

If the lights were off, she had no way to see that boat. No way at all. There are two boats involved in this accident and just because she drove hers into the other, it doesn’t automatically make her the assailant. There is causing someone’s death by mistake but this would be here causing death by an impossible to change event. So it was up to someone to decide that and charge her under what they felt they could prove.

 

[JackBurton]

Kevin isn’t apart of this so it is not the “O’Leary’s” walking on this.

The question is did SHE kill two people or did the negligent second boat owner kill the 2 people?

If the latter, should the other guy be charged with negligent homicide? Do we have that in Canada? I don’t know. We have to something similar.

If the lights were off, she had no way to see that boat. No way at all. There are two boats involved in this accident and just because she drove hers into the other, it doesn’t automatically make her the assailant. There is causing someone’s death by mistake but this would be here causing death by an impossible to change event. So it was up to someone to decide that and charge her under what they felt they could prove.

This is exactly the kind of debate that will let them walk.

I’ll even bet money on it.

 

[mandrill]

She was charged and is being tried under The Canada Shipping Act. No criminal charges were laid.

It doesn't matter. There is Court of Appeal caselaw that someone found guilty on a criminal standard of proof at a criminal-style trial cannot re litigate the same set of facts later at a civil trial.

 

[silentkisser]

She killed two people. Not sure if you have read the article that’s printed in the news?

Sure it was an accident, that’s why manslaughter is a charge.

Mark my words: the O’Leary’s will walk. Rich, connected people never go to jail. It’s how our corrupt system works.

I'm no legal expert, but I think manslaughter here would be a reach. Sure, the two people were killed accidentally, but the issue here on a few levels is the negligence of those involved. Unlike an accident on the highway, where the police can re-construct the events with things like skid marks and debris fields, even the "black box" in a car, this happened on a lake. At night. Where there would be no way to collect enough evidence. If Linda O'Leary wasn't under the influence (and it would be impossible to say now), then she would likely be at fault, regardless of what the other boat did.

Now, I'm also not a boater. But it seems to me that having your running lights on at night is something that is probably required. I would imagine the odds of two boats colliding in that big lake are probably slim, but it happened. If the O'Leary boat was following the rules of the sea (or whatever), and the other boat was not, they are the ones who should be held liable for the deaths.

Here's a slightly similar story: Remember about 6 or so years ago, a woman in Quebec stopped her car on the highway because some geese were crossing? It caused a multi-car pileup and two people were killed? She was found guilty of criminal negligence and dangerous driving. It's similar because someone did something they were not supposed to (stop suddenly on a major highway) that cause a tragic situation (car crash killing people).

 

[Darts]

BTW: Another boating accident last night. One dead, one missing.

 

[Uncharted]

Kevin isn’t apart of this so it is not the “O’Leary’s” walking on this.

The question is did SHE kill two people or did the negligent second boat owner kill the 2 people?

If the latter, should the other guy be charged with negligent homicide? Do we have that in Canada? I don’t know. We have to something similar.

If the lights were off, she had no way to see that boat. No way at all. There are two boats involved in this accident and just because she drove hers into the other, it doesn’t automatically make her the assailant. There is causing someone’s death by mistake but this would be here causing death by an impossible to change event. So it was up to someone to decide that and charge her under what they felt they could prove.

Exactly

I don't know why this has gone as far as it has. She did nothing to cause the crash.

I've been operating boats longer than I have been driving cars. Everyone who does knows if you are operating a boat on a body of water at night, with no Nav, or anchor lights, you are taking your life into your own hands.

If this was a car accident, where the other car had no lights on what so ever, the driver of the light-less car would have been charged immediately. No matter who died in which vehicle.

 

[mandrill]

I'm no legal expert, but I think manslaughter here would be a reach. Sure, the two people were killed accidentally, but the issue here on a few levels is the negligence of those involved. Unlike an accident on the highway, where the police can re-construct the events with things like skid marks and debris fields, even the "black box" in a car, this happened on a lake. At night. Where there would be no way to collect enough evidence. If Linda O'Leary wasn't under the influence (and it would be impossible to say now), then she would likely be at fault, regardless of what the other boat did.

Now, I'm also not a boater. But it seems to me that having your running lights on at night is something that is probably required. I would imagine the odds of two boats colliding in that big lake are probably slim, but it happened. If the O'Leary boat was following the rules of the sea (or whatever), and the other boat was not, they are the ones who should be held liable for the deaths.

Here's a slightly similar story: Remember about 6 or so years ago, a woman in Quebec stopped her car on the highway because some geese were crossing? It caused a multi-car pileup and two people were killed? She was found guilty of criminal negligence and dangerous driving. It's similar because someone did something they were not supposed to (stop suddenly on a major highway) that cause a tragic situation (car crash killing people).

I'm guessing that civil liability will be a split - 70% to the boat with no running lights and maybe 30% to O' Leary.

 

[explorerzip]

This is exactly the kind of debate that will let them walk.

I’ll even bet money on it.

So are you saying that we should not debate this just in case she's found not guilty? How about the courts? Should they not debate such issues? IMO, a hearing is basically a debate. You have multiple sides presenting evidence to prove their position.