This makes me really depressed.

[KristieW]

Katrina rescuer is sued by boat owner
He took craft and never brought it back
Saturday, August 26, 2006
By Steve Ritea
Staff writer

A Broadmoor man who said he rescued more than 200 residents after commandeering a boat during the flood after Hurricane Katrina is being sued by the boat's owner for taking it "without receiving permission."

Mark Morice, who by the Wednesday after the storm said he "couldn't get more than a block or two without people screaming to me for help," took the boat "out of necessity. . . . I did it for my neighbors."

Among them was Irving Gordon, a 93-year-old dialysis patient who Morice carried from his flooded home, placed in the boat and rescued from distress.

"I don't know where we would be today if it weren't for him," Molly Gordon, Gordon's wife of 65 years, said Friday.

The lawsuit contends that boat owner John M. Lyons Jr. suffered his own distress, in the form of "grief, mental anguish, embarrassment and suffering . . . due to the removal of the boat," as well as its replacement costs.

Read the rest of the article here (http://www.nola.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-6/1156572434292430.xml)

[tray622]

:eek: ridiculous

[maplekitty]

agreed - that guy should be ashamed of himself to file such a lawsuit!

[tlew12778]

Did the guy who is suing lose any relatives that he couldn't rescue bc he couldn't find his boat?

[charliezangel]

The whole thing is ridiculous. The problem is that everyone is looking for somone to blame in all this, for anything, so that they don't feel so helpless.

Did the guy who is suing lose any relatives that he couldn't rescue bc he couldn't find his boat?

If this is the case, i can see where he might be upset, but the lawsuit states that he was upset that the man who took his boat was using it for publicity purposes. Also, did he really expect him to leave a note, only days after one of the worse natural disasters in American history....I highly doubt the man was thinking anything but how can help myself and my neighboors get to safety.

When hurrcane wilma blew through in south florida, there were people in my apartment complex who could not get out of their homes because trees were in front of the doors. My DH and BIL found a chainsaw in an unlocked maintainance shed and used it to help people get out their front doors. After about 2-3 hours of using it to help people, the chain got stuck in a rather large tree trunk. We couldn't get it to work after that. I don't know what they did with it, but we continued to try to get people out of their houses by moving as many branches as we could and making tools to move them. Honestly, the last thing we cared about was a chainsaw we found that allowed us to save people.

[isaacsmommy]

That man is unbelievably selfish and a few other things that I will refrain from saying here :mad: . The man that took it saved many people and if those lives are less important to the owner then his damn boat then he should be ashamed of himself. They should bring the people that were saved by this mans boat in front of him and let them ask him if the boat was more valuable than their lives. He talks about HIS suffering and anguish, I can bet it is nothing compared to what the people trapped in their attics felt. People like him disgust me.

[mamax2]

How pathetic. Sounds like this guy, Lyons, is sour grapes over not insuring his boat for the proper amount. He should consider himself lucky that $12,000 is all it would take to 'settle this matter'. There's no dollar value on lives.

[flygirl]

I think it's also sour grapes over Morice getting so much attention. The lawyer got lucky that there were so many pics & videos of him in the boat. Not to detract from what he did; I have no doubt publicity was NOT on his mind when he used the boat to save lives. But the fact is, it *has* led to lots of publicity which he's milked, and his practice has profited from it. I think Lyons feels he should also receive some form of compensation since it was his boat.

[snapdragon]

Dude, he left the keys in the ignition. If he didn't want the boat stolen maybe he shouldn't have made it so easy to "steal." The boat was used to save lives. If Morice hadn't take it somebody else would have. And maybe that other person wouldn't have used it to save lives.

[KristyK]

Honestly, the last thing we cared about was a chainsaw we found that allowed us to save people.


Better be careful who you tell this story too, or some schmuck that didn't insure his property properly and was stupid enough to leave it laying around might sue you! :rolleyes:

[Sidhe]

Holy crow. The scary thing is, I bet this jerk wins his case. In Canada it is MUCH harder to sue people. Thank God.

I hope it gets thrown out of court.

[kindermom]

What a jerk. (the boat owner that is)

[paulinaaa]

The issue is, he did not get his property back. It was not returned, and he's out the money for the boat. It doesn't matter if the keys were in it, it was stolen from him, used by someone (who incidently did good deeds after stealing it), and not returned.

Perhaps those people who's lives were saved, should be grateful enough to see to it the man who's boat it was didn't have to suffer the financial hardships of replacing it.

How long would it take an of us to save up the money to replace the boat?

[kris97]

I'm sure the owner had insurance on the boat. And even if he didn't, the owner isn't just seeking money to replace the boat - he wanted the equivalent of pain and suffering for the loss of boat, which, given all that went on during Katrina, is just bullshit.

And yes, if I lost my boat to someone who used it to save people, I'd eat the money for the boat. At some point being a boat owner has to be less important than being a human being.

[mmeblue]

Perhaps those people who's lives were saved, should be grateful enough to see to it the man who's boat it was didn't have to suffer the financial hardships of replacing it.

How long would it take an of us to save up the money to replace the boat?
I don't know about you, but I don't have a spare $12,000 lying around. I can't imagine that those who had to be rescued - the ones who I'm presuming lost nearly everything in the hurricane - would have that much to spare, either. If my life had been saved, I would probably seek to show gratitude to those responsible for saving it - the man driving the boat, definitely, and probably the owner in this situation (if I knew about his loss). But I seriously doubt that my gratitude could be shown in a monetary manner sufficient to replace the lost boat, especially if I were trying to rebuild my own life from scratch.

[jnettie]

Well, some people still don't have HOMES to LIVE in and this guy apparently has the time a leasure to sue over his boat. :rolleyes: I'm sorry, I don't care if he's out a boat. He should be glad that he's alive.

[keska]

I'd be fine with the guy taking the boat to save people. I'd be peeved that he just left it somewhere and apparently made no effort to secure it or let the owner know where it was after the emergency passed.

[miaclear]

I'd be fine with the guy taking the boat to save people. I'd be peeved that he just left it somewhere and apparently made no effort to secure it or let the owner know where it was after the emergency passed.

Agreed. Although I think they're both being childish the guy who commandered the boats seems a little show-boaty about the whole thing.

[DiscoDiva]

Hmm... Right off I think that the boat owner is a total asshat. But then again, did he lose his home in the storm and needed the boat to sell to start over? Did he go looking for it in the storm to get to safety and it was gone? Did the loss of the boat cause him any real suffering (like being trapped, unable to get out, etc.)? Or is he just mad because the guy who hijacked it is getting notoriety? Or is the guy who hijacked it now making a lot of money from interviews and such? If so, then the 'boat hijacker' should reimburse the owner of the boat. Neither of them should be profiting from what happened.

I'd be peeved that he just left it somewhere and apparently made no effort to secure it or let the owner know where it was after the emergency passed.
But was that even a reality? Did he drop it off, exhausted, after working days straight saving people? Was the area totally devastated and he didn't even know where to leave it or how to get ahold of the owner? I don't think we can apply our current calm thinking to how the 'hijacker' should have been thinking after days of rescuing people after such a horrible naturay disaster, ya know?

[paulinaaa]

I'd be fine with the guy taking the boat to save people. I'd be peeved that he just left it somewhere and apparently made no effort to secure it or let the owner know where it was after the emergency passed.

As I said, the issue is his property was not returned .... he's out the money.

I'm sure the owner had insurance on the boat. And even if he didn't, the owner isn't just seeking money to replace the boat - he wanted the equivalent of pain and suffering for the loss of boat, which, given all that went on during Katrina, is just bullshit.

And yes, if I lost my boat to someone who used it to save people, I'd eat the money for the boat. At some point being a boat owner has to be less important than being a human being.

He may have insurance, but the insurance company may not be paying due to it "being lost during the huricane".

I don't know about you, but I don't have a spare $12,000 lying around. I can't imagine that those who had to be rescued - the ones who I'm presuming lost nearly everything in the hurricane - would have that much to spare, either. If my life had been saved, I would probably seek to show gratitude to those responsible for saving it - the man driving the boat, definitely, and probably the owner in this situation (if I knew about his loss). But I seriously doubt that my gratitude could be shown in a monetary manner sufficient to replace the lost boat, especially if I were trying to rebuild my own life from scratch.

Again, exactly .. I don't have $12000 to spare to replace the boat, and he probably don't either. He's out his money.

[DiscoDiva]

So this issue has nothing to do with the boat, and the owner would have been fine had the 'hijacker' not used his actions to get attention and financial gain? It's more "it's okay to use my boat to save people, but don't turn into a big show-off about it."

[flygirl]

So this issue has nothing to do with the boat, and the owner would have been fine had the 'hijacker' not used his actions to get attention and financial gain? It's more "it's okay to use my boat to save people, but don't turn into a big show-off about it."I don't know about "nothing," and we don't know the whole story, but the point a few of us are making is that the rescuer has been show boating and benefiting from it, and the boat-owner may be trying to piggy-back off of that.

'm sure the owner had insurance on the boat. And even if he didn't, the owner isn't just seeking money to replace the boat - he wanted the equivalent of pain and suffering for the loss of boat, which, given all that went on during Katrina, is just bullshit.It says above that his insurance covered less than half the replacement cost of the boat, a figure we don't know. We have no idea if $12k is representative of this cost or if it's more. His suit says he suffered the grief etc, but it doesn't say he's suing for more than the replacement cost.

The issue is, he did not get his property back. It was not returned, and he's out the money for the boat. It doesn't matter if the keys were in it, it was stolen from him, used by someone (who incidently did good deeds after stealing it), and not returned.I'm not sure that *is* the issue. I'm pretty sure there are hardship/emergency laws regarding property.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Again, exactly .. I don't have $12000 to spare to replace the boat, and he probably don't either. He's out his money.

What does whether you or I have $12,000 to spare to replace a boat have to do with whether his lawsuit is right or not?
I could come up with $12,000 to replace a boat if that was a priority to me. So does that mean he probably could? No, and if you can't spare $12,000 to replace a boat, it doesn't mean he probably couldn't either.

We really can't tell what his financial situation is, without seeing his bank account statements, insurance, mortgage payments, etc., etc.

[philnikki]

I don't even know where to begin with this one. :(

I feel so terrible that after everything that happened with Katrina, this guy is suing over a freaking boat for gods sake. Yeah, he might be out the boat, but at least he got SOMETHING for it. Even if they guy had not taken it, what condition was it in anyway? Would the owner had submitted an insurance claim anyway? It seems from this guy's character that he would have.

To be honest, it doesn't surprise me that in the midst of recovering from a disaster like that, people would be all about themselves. It saddens me how selfish that people are. If someone stole my boat with the intent to profit in some way from stealing it during a non-disaster scenario, then that is wrong. If someone steals a boat to save the lives of people screaming for help in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters we have ever seen, then I call that guy a hero and buy him a beer. I would have *expected* that if someone's life could have been saved by using my boat, that someone have had the decency to save the lives of others. The guy could have taken the boat and just saved himself, but he didn't.

And if this were me, and money was all I cared about, it would be my own fault for being too cheap to pay for a higher premium on my insurance to cover my actual damages for having to replace the boat in the event it were stolen or destroyed.

[chefker]

I thought about this, and inserted myself into the situation; say, what if some horrible disaster happened, and someone took my car in order to get people to safety, and then the car was never found.

Would I be pissed that I was out a car? Probably so, but if I learned that someone used my car to SAVE people, then the pissed off feeling would be replaced by one of guilt! I would feel guilty & selfish, worrying about a car--which is replaceable--when people's lives might have been at stake.

Of course I'd want to get some monetary compensation for my car--by settling with my insurance company. I would NOT consider suing the individual, unless by stealing my car, my family and I were left stranded and helpless (which is a scenario someone else mentioned previously).

So what if the guy who took the boat is getting publicity? I still don't see how that affects the boat owner. He should get SOME recognition for taking the initiative to try and get people to safety. Too many people in our society will sit by and say "it's not my problem" to people who need help.

[kris97]

I'm sorry I missed the part about the insurance, but I think it's really picayune to carp about the fact that someone "showboated" with the boat. The guy didn't use the boat to sell T-shirts - he used it to save people's lives. He could go on Letterman to talk about the boat, and I wouldn't sue him. I'd be so thankful that my boat helped people to live. Call me crazy, but that I'd find that far more important than that some guy dared talk about using my boat to save victims of the hurricane.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

kris and chefker, ITA.

[miaclear]

Perhaps those people who's lives were saved, should be grateful enough to see to it the man who's boat it was didn't have to suffer the financial hardships of replacing it.

If the guy saved over 200 people that's only $60 a head for those who were saved. I'd pay $60 for a ride on a boat!

I still think that both of them are being childish but I'd probably be ticked off myself if I lost that much property.

[kedzieb]

It's shocking to me that anyone is defending the man bringing the lawsuit. Hurricane Katrina devestated people's lives and many people died. Someone had the guts to spend those horrible days saving other people with whatever boats he could get. The thought of that hero being sued is disgusting.

He didn't steal the boat - he used it to save people's lives. Even if he had used it just to save his own life, it would be understandable that he didn't bring it back. Where was the suer during the flooding? He certainly wasn't using the boat to save anyone. Bringing a lawsuit against this man is one of the worst things I've seen one human being do to another in a while. He should be ashamed of himself.

If he has a problem with how much the insurance company is giving him, he should take it up with them. This is like suing a fireman for braking down a door to save a trapped person in a house. Ridiculous and selfish.

[MLA]

If the guy saved over 200 people that's only $60 a head for those who were saved. I'd pay $60 for a ride on a boat!



Wow. Just . . . wow. If you had $60 to spare, then you'd probably have been able to get yourself out of NO before Katrina hit. We're not talking about people w/expendable money here. We're talking about desperately poor people in desperately difficult situations.

[lawyerlee]

It's always nice to see someone who has his priorities in order. :rolleyes: It really pisses me off that someone is so worried about money under these circumstances that he'd sue someone for doing the morally right thing.

[isaacsmommy]

I think the whole idea of that the guy should have tried to return it is pretty bs. In the midst of Katrina and after spending days saving people who would actually go to try to find someone who may have evacuated days ago? :confused: He could have put it back where he got it, but likely someone else would have stolen it. Also it said in the article that the guy left it where other rescuers could use it. Geez I guess being a good samaritan really is a bad idea these days. This kind of lawsuit may make people hesitate even more before helping someone in need, that is really sad.

[flygirl]

Oh, I agree with you, Kris. Just lending to the nuances of the situation.

[miaclear]

Wow. Just . . . wow. If you had $60 to spare, then you'd probably have been able to get yourself out of NO before Katrina hit. We're not talking about people w/expendable money here. We're talking about desperately poor people in desperately difficult situations.

It was a joke. I thought I put my "sarcastic" face after it but apparantly not. I realize most these people don't have anything to spare.

But I still think that both these men are acting like babies. The boat stealer may have done a very honorable thing then but now he seems to be saying "hey....look what I did everone!" The other guy is probably barking up the wrong tree if he wants more money for his boat but the simple fact is he had property that was stolen, lost, damaged. If someone admited to stealing it and loosing it maybe they should have just kept quite about it all.

[Aimee]

I'm a lifelong NOLA metro-area resident. I've been back post-Katrina since...well, one year ago today, actually. In all that time, the first I ever heard of this guy was when he was sued. It made the paper about a week or so ago. So much for "publicity".

Chances are that, had this guy not taken the boat, someone else would have. It was just that kind of world. The world I came back to was pretty hellish, and we didn't have near the problems that they did in the city itself. It's not like the boat was taken out on a joyride.

As I understand it, the owner had evacuated, which is why his boat was unattended. Whether it'd been stolen, looted, whatever, the basic issue is that he didn't have replacement value insurance - his policy was for the depreciated value. It nobody's fault but his own that his boat was underinsured.

[MLA]

It was a joke. I thought I put my "sarcastic" face after it but apparantly not. I realize most these people don't have anything to spare.

The sarcasm was lost on me. I'm glad you were joking, though.

[sdianems]

Well, one can hope that the NOLA legal system will be far too overloaded (still) to handle a case like this and come before a logical judge who will throw it out.

[Sarah]

I'm surprised so many people think it's okay to take something and make no effort to return it or replace it. If I steal your car, sell it, and spend the money buying AIDS meds for people in South Africa, is that okay? Is it okay to make sacrifices on other people's behalf for them? No. I think it's an asshole thing to do, for this guy to sue the other guy, and he sounds like he has other motives. But I also think that if the rescuer guy wants to rescue people in someone else's boat, he needs to take the consequences. It was still the right thing to do, IMO, but you can't scrifice someone else's property to save lives, without paying.

[kedzieb]

I'm surprised so many people think it's okay to take something and make no effort to return it or replace it. If I steal your car, sell it, and spend the money buying AIDS meds for people in South Africa, is that okay? Is it okay to make sacrifices on other people's behalf for them? No. I think it's an asshole thing to do, for this guy to sue the other guy, and he sounds like he has other motives. But I also think that if the rescuer guy wants to rescue people in someone else's boat, he needs to take the consequences. It was still the right thing to do, IMO, but you can't scrifice someone else's property to save lives, without paying.

I could not disagree more. What consequence would you like the guy to pay? Should the hero be responsible for the lack of planning on the part of the boat owner? The owner should have been insured enough so he would get full replacement value on his boat. If the hero had used the boat only to save himself Iwould still be defending him. Human life is far more valuable than a boat.

[artist]

I'm surprised so many people think it's okay to take something and make no effort to return it or replace it. If I steal your car, sell it, and spend the money buying AIDS meds for people in South Africa, is that okay? Is it okay to make sacrifices on other people's behalf for them? No. I think it's an asshole thing to do, for this guy to sue the other guy, and he sounds like he has other motives. But I also think that if the rescuer guy wants to rescue people in someone else's boat, he needs to take the consequences. It was still the right thing to do, IMO, but you can't scrifice someone else's property to save lives, without paying.


Not a comparable thing.

If my entire neighborhood were flooded up to my roof, and you left town and I was still in town, and all the neighbors, many of them poor were in the process of dying, yes, I WOULD steal your boat in order to save lives. In fact, I'd feel extremely guilty NOT stealing the boat if it meant watching 200 people die.

The real question is, WHO is "showboating"? The guy who saved 200 lives, or the jerk who feels the need to take that man to court? I had not heard of either man until just now and I only found out about either due TO the lawsuit.

Many people still don't have homes. I can't feel sorry for a man with no boat.

I could understand if the argument were that the boat owner were stranded at his house BECAUSE someone took his boat, but that doesn't seem to be the argument.

[jnettie]

I'm sorry, the RIGHT thing to do is to find a way to save people's lives. If that means you have to find the first available boat to save lives, then that's what has to happen. It's so easy to sit in your comfortable house and say that it's wrong to steal and therefore this man has the right to sue, but I bet the situation is reveresed if you happen to find yourself stranded on the roof of your house for three days. Bet you don't ask who owns that boat when someone comes by to rescue you. Bet you don't hesitate to take any boat that you find if you haven't eaten or drank in a few days.

[Aimee]

Just saw on the news that the boat owner dropped the lawsuit and is "glad his boat could help people." I can't find a link on nola.com yet - will update when I have one.

:)

[kedzieb]

Just saw on the news that the boat owner dropped the lawsuit and is "glad his boat could help people." I can't find a link on nola.com yet - will update when I have one.

:)

I'm glad he came to his senses. Anyone else picturing the Grinch's heart growing 3 sizes too large?

[ThreeYell]

Just saw this in today's Times Pic:
Boat owner drops lawsuit
Man took it to rescue victims of Katrina
Friday, September 08, 2006
By Leslie Williams

John Lyons Jr. has decided not to pursue his lawsuit against a Broadmoor man who said he rescued more than 200 residents from post-Katrina floodwaters after commandeering Lyons' boat.

On Tuesday, Lyons' attorney, E. Ronald Mills, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit seeking payment for direct and indirect costs "attributable to the actual conversion of the boat and motor," as well as for "grief, mental anguish, embarrassment and suffering of the petitioner due to the removal of the boat and motor."

In a written statement, Lyons referenced the "media frenzy" surrounding the lawsuit against Mark Morice and explained that the turnabout will allow Lyons "to redirect my energy back to rebuilding my home and my neighborhood."

"The big issue here is not the monetary damages that I incurred from the loss of the boat," he wrote. "It is about holding people responsible for their actions.

"Does a natural disaster give an individual the right to break into private property, take possessions of others, not return them and then have no responsibility to the rightful owner? If this becomes a precedent, then we, the citizens, will ultimately pay the price."

Lyons said he too was a victim of Hurricane Katrina and that he evacuated 10 people from a flooded home, including several elderly women and a young child.

"To complete this evacuation, I borrowed a pirogue and personally paddled these people eight blocks through fallen trees to dry ground. After numerous trips back and forth, when everyone was out and safe, I waded back through chest-deep floodwater to return the pirogue to the owner's home."

Morice welcomed Lyons' change of heart.

"I feel relieved," Morice said Thursday. "I'm sorry he lost his boat, but I felt blessed that it was available to me when I needed it."

Morice said he didn't return the boat when he could no longer use it because he turned it over to others "at the water's edge, so they could go save more lives."

Morice, who said he never saw the 18-foot Fiberglas T-hull boat again, said he later told Lyons' wife that he took their boat and explained why. Lyons said Thursday that Morice's encounter with his wife was accidental, and he did not purposefully seek out his wife to explain why he had taken their boat.

"I felt horrible when I was taking the boat," Morice said, "but I realized I had to have it to save lives."