Bad accident in South Channel

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story...-boat-operator-harsens-island-crash/17051549/


Warrant authorized for boat operator in Harsens Island crash


A warrant has been authorized for a 32-year-old Chesterfield Township man involved in a fatal boat crash near Harsens Island on Aug. 3.


St. Clair County Prosecutor Mike Wendling said Brandon Michael Verfaillie is facing charges of two counts of operating while intoxicated causing death, a 15-year felony, and one count of operating while intoxicated causing serious injury, a 5-year felony.


Wendling said Verfaillie was the operator of a boat involved in the crash that killed two people in the St. Clair River's South Channel.


The St. Clair County Sheriff Department has said Robert Koontz, 57, of Chesterfield Township and Nancy Axford, 68, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, were killed when a 25-foot Baja power boat rode up and over the cabin cruiser they were on.


Wendling said his office has been waiting for toxicology results to see what Verfaillie's blood alcohol content was at the time of the crash.


Jim Simasko, a lawyer with offices in Mount Clemens and Fort Gratiot, said he filed a claim a couple of weeks ago against Verfaillie and Amanda Krogulec, who Simasko said is the owner of the vessel.


He filed the claim on behalf of the estate of Robert Koontz and his wife, Marlene Koontz, who Simasko said suffered lifelong injuries in the crash.


Simasko said he's asking for civil remedies to pay for medical bills, pain, suffering, lost income and support.


"No amount of money could cover what they went through," Simasko said.


"They're still suffering and still in shock from what was supposed to be an enjoyable day on the lake."


Simasko said Verfaillie and Krogulec have 21 days from the time they were served to answer the claim.
 
I enjoy a few beers while boating as do most boaters I know. None of us ever come close to crashing into other vessels. Also 0.10 is nothing. This wasn't drinking that caused this, it was stupidity and carelessnes. .10 cuts reaction time yes and a boater should slow it down accordingly. Driving fast and drinking don't mix. However an additional half second reaction time wasn't going to help with a driver who pays this little attention to begin with.

Just my 2¢
 
.....Also 0.10 is nothing. This wasn't drinking that caused this, it was stupidity and carelessnes....

Are you serious?? So .08 is over the limit in a 2,000 lbs car going 70+ mph but somehow 0.10 is nothing in a 15,000 - 80,000+ boat?!?!? Where is that you do your boating? I want to make sure I'm far away from you when me and my wife and family are enjoying a relaxing day on the water.
 
Are you serious?? So .08 is over the limit in a 2,000 lbs car going 70+ mph but somehow 0.10 is nothing in a 15,000 - 80,000+ boat?!?!? Where is that you do your boating? I want to make sure I'm far away from you when me and my wife and family are enjoying a relaxing day on the water.



Did you seriously just make the argument that x is bad because x is illegal?

Note I did not say .10 is not impaired. Note I specifically said going that speed while impaired is bad. Eh, why am I bothering. You would rather cherry pick something I said, remove the context, and then make a juvenile response.
 
Once tied up at the dock, we have debriefing, talk about the day, the cocktails are flowing. After the boat is secured, I may very well have a cocktail in hand.

But, have a zero consumption rule while underway. My personal thing, no impairment while underway, and no possible question of - am I over the line or not. With my own personal zero rule, I never have to worry about whether I am across the line.

Just me, my personal thing.

A lot of friends have a beer or two while underway, that's fine for them.

My concern, if I were ever involved in an accident, I want a clean slate.

Not making any judgments - just expressing my personal rules.
 
Last edited:
Just a Question
Do different states have different legal drive limits.
Across Canada it is .08. At .05 you loose the car for 1 to 3 days depending on the province but there is no charge.
 
I actually understand what you're trying to say, but the drinking is likely the thing that caused this person to believe they could pull this off...liquid courage as they say. 0.10 is absolutely going to impact your decision making, reaction time, and other things, but I think you're trying to say that this guy was a tool to begin with...his stupidity was compounded by the drinking, but he would have likely already attempted this wake jumping regardless with perhaps the same end result.

Just sad, the whole thing is just avoidable when you think about just common sense of staying away from other boats, especially at speed. I can't think of a single thing that this guy will be able to say in his defense...he's about to get a lot of time to think about it. I certainly don't feel sorry for him, but he'll have to live with taking the lives of others in a senseless boating accident.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/links/sid/ABCsBACWeb/page2.htm
 
Last edited:
No matter if you only had one beer if you are in an accident on the water the court will not over look it just because you were below the blood alcohol limit. Any alcohol and it's a DUI. The court doesn't care that you feel you can operate a vehicle when you only had one drink. Even if you did not cause the accident you will still be judge harshly. One or two beers is the difference between your insurance covering the damage or a court case. It's not the american way but a beer is not worth the risk for me.
 
In my boat...if the lines are off the dock there is zero alcohol consumed. Tis includes going out for the day and dropping the hook. Just too many idiots out there that don't care. My family and passengers are the most impotent things to me and I will take every precaution to ensure that we all return to the sock safely. I do not understand why anyone would even take the chance.
 
This statement is not true unless one has signed a special policy making it so. If you have an accident while DUI you are still insured.

MM
I didn't mean you wouldn't have insurance coverage for an accident if there was a DUI involved. But it would be a whole heck of a lot easier if when something happens that involves the law if you weren't under the influence when it's all said and done.
 
I didn't mean you wouldn't have insurance coverage for an accident if there was a DUI involved.

Sorry, misunderstood the point.

But it would be a whole heck of a lot easier if when something happens that involves the law if you weren't under the influence when it's all said and done.

Agreed!

MM
 
What a huge tragedy for all involved, irresponsible actions lead to tragic consequences. Hopefully someone will learn a lesson from this saving other lives.

MM
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,950
Messages
1,422,861
Members
60,932
Latest member
juliediane
Back
Top