If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(10 News)   Remember that family that took a sick baby on a sailboat voyage and had to be rescued by Coast Guard when baby's health took a downturn? They're back in the news, armed with a lawyer and suing the cell phone provider   (10news.com) divider line 264
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

10317 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2014 at 4:58 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



264 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-10 11:10:59 PM  
Right, because it's the cell phone providers fault that the phone stopped working?
 
2014-07-10 11:37:03 PM  

BizarreMan: Right, because it's the cell phone providers fault that the phone stopped working?


Cell phone company sunk their boat.

/off for popcorn
 
2014-07-10 11:52:26 PM  
In spite of what happened, the Kaufmans say they plan to travel the world with their kids again, as soon as they get a new sailboat.
img.fark.net
Whoever sells them a boat should get sued.
 
2014-07-11 12:16:45 AM  
Good luck with that, Skipper
 
2014-07-11 12:40:27 AM  
The headline is misleading. FTA it's a satellite phone. Not a 'cell phone'.

A satellite phone has a higher level of expectation of service; because of it's nature it's used in remote location where their might not be another other commutation available---especially in emergency situation.

FTA..the Phone was deactivated by the service by mistake.

If there was an error on the service's part..that's a valid point.
 
2014-07-11 02:18:15 AM  

optikeye: The headline is misleading. FTA it's a satellite phone. Not a 'cell phone'.

A satellite phone has a higher level of expectation of service; because of it's nature it's used in remote location where their might not be another other commutation available---especially in emergency situation.

FTA..the Phone was deactivated by the service by mistake.

If there was an error on the service's part..that's a valid point.


I came here to say this.
 
2014-07-11 02:35:33 AM  
So they lived on a boat, down by the river?
 
2014-07-11 05:13:02 AM  
The article isn't clear as to how or why the satellite phone provider disconnected them (or more accurately why their phone stopped working).  I also think it's a little silly that such a situation, though an emergency, would necessitate abandoning and scuttling their boat.

And of course there is the obvious question of what the hell an infant is going to get out of such a voyage.  I don't care how careful you are - assuming you have relatives, you leave the noisy, smelly, disease spreading water sack of dead weight back on dry land.
 
2014-07-11 05:14:58 AM  
I didn't follow this story when it was new, but there was one thing I didn't understand. Why did they have to scuttle their boat? When the Coast Guard comes, is it really the rule? "OK, everyone on the chopper, and sink this f*cking boat!"

I mean, couldn't dad stay on board while the rest of the family goes off to hospital, then find a place to park it somewhere?
 
2014-07-11 05:15:04 AM  

optikeye: The headline is misleading. FTA it's a satellite phone. Not a 'cell phone'.

A satellite phone has a higher level of expectation of service; because of it's nature it's used in remote location where their might not be another other commutation available---especially in emergency situation.

FTA..the Phone was deactivated by the service by mistake.

If there was an error on the service's part..that's a valid point.


The two REAL questions are
1) Is the satellite provider really at fault for any amount greater than the cost of the monthly service charge?
and 2) Why the f*ck didn't they have a goddamn radio like every other boat out there? Are those no longer mandated by law?
 
2014-07-11 05:17:27 AM  

BizarreMan: Right, because it's the cell phone providers fault that the phone stopped working?


Um, yes, as a matter of fact it is. As I recall, they chose to change SIM card brands, or styles, or something or other. So, they mailed everybody new SIM cards, then turned the old ones off. You know, since most of the people who buy satellite phone service are off in Bumfuk, Egypt for months at a time, they'll be sure to check their mail regularly.
 
2014-07-11 05:18:05 AM  
Whenever Communications, LLC
Well that's your problem right there
 
2014-07-11 05:26:11 AM  
And in today's lesson we learn that just because people make choices others don't approve of, it does not mean they are necessarily wrong in everything.
 
2014-07-11 05:29:11 AM  
How would the SAT provider sped up the rescue?
 
2014-07-11 05:30:34 AM  
Can someone please explain why he sunk the boat? I'm so confused.
 
2014-07-11 05:31:32 AM  

starsrift: 1) Is the satellite provider really at fault for any amount greater than the cost of the monthly service charge?


Possibly.  Typically in a breach on contract suit, you can collect consequential damages so long as that are "reasonable foreseeable" or "within the contemplation of the parties" depending on the jurisdiction.  So, assuming they can show that there was in fact a breach of the contract, they would be probably be entitled to consequential damages, assuming the facts are as reported.

It should be noted that defenses typically available in tort actions (assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, etc) are not available in a breach on contract claim.
 
2014-07-11 05:33:14 AM  
Why did he 'have to do what was necessary to sink the rebel heart's? What was the purpose of that? When my phone dissent work, I throw the phone at the wall, I don't burn down my flat.
 
2014-07-11 05:34:57 AM  
I thought they did an interview with This American Life. They we're alright until a wave knocked out everything that was supposed to be waterproof. Including the satphone. They had a sick infant, no coms (including the weatherproof ones) so they had to pull the cord on the transponder of last resort.
 
2014-07-11 05:41:34 AM  
It doesn't have to be a one or the other situation, it sounds like both parties here were dumbasses.
 
2014-07-11 05:46:58 AM  
All of you people who read the article so that they could make informed comments are ruining it for the rest of us who want to make fun of the family for being stupid!  That's not the Fark way!!!
 
2014-07-11 05:47:49 AM  
Another set of smug self-involved parents doing something stupid with their little resource-sucking sack of protoplasm. Terrific. Next thing you know, these assholes will be sitting next to my wife and I in a fine restaurant while babby screams, "MOMMY!!!" over and over and over and over again.
 
2014-07-11 05:50:19 AM  

feckingmorons: optikeye: The headline is misleading. FTA it's a satellite phone. Not a 'cell phone'.

A satellite phone has a higher level of expectation of service; because of it's nature it's used in remote location where their might not be another other commutation available---especially in emergency situation.

FTA..the Phone was deactivated by the service by mistake.

If there was an error on the service's part..that's a valid point.

I came here to say this.


EggSniper: The article isn't clear as to how or why the satellite phone provider disconnected them (or more accurately why their phone stopped working).  I also think it's a little silly that such a situation, though an emergency, would necessitate abandoning and scuttling their boat.

And of course there is the obvious question of what the hell an infant is going to get out of such a voyage.  I don't care how careful you are - assuming you have relatives, you leave the noisy, smelly, disease spreading water sack of dead weight back on dry land.


They have a valid point, but yeah, there's a little bit too much "the family said...." in the story for me to swallow it just yet.

I'm guessing they scuttled it coz it's a hazard to other craft[?].
 
2014-07-11 05:57:45 AM  
took a sick baby, or took a baby that later got sick?
 
2014-07-11 06:05:19 AM  

Talondel: starsrift: 1) Is the satellite provider really at fault for any amount greater than the cost of the monthly service charge?

Possibly...


Yeah, exactly! It's a real question, and one left to the courts.
 
2014-07-11 06:08:24 AM  
Just curious, but why did he have to sink the boat? He couldn't have stayed with the boat and sail it back to port? I know 1000 is a pretty good distance but blaming a sat phone provider for sinking your boat is pretty dumb.
 
2014-07-11 06:12:30 AM  
By that logic I should be able to sue T-mobile for my wife's bricked phone when the SIM died on her in an ice storm.

That phone (a G1) ate a SIM card about every 3 months.
 
2014-07-11 06:15:36 AM  

bekovich: Why did he 'have to do what was necessary to sink the rebel heart's? What was the purpose of that? When my phone dissent work, I throw the phone at the wall, I don't burn down my flat.


I think they'll have a really tough time proving the sat phone was the biggest point of failure here.  If there were just someway to hide all the evidence at the bottom of the ocean.

In all seriousness, cough, apparently the CG asked them to scuttle the ship.  Not sure.  Weirdest story of home medic, sea salted comms, and broken rudder syndrome I've ever read.  I'm not quite sure how your very simple obvious question hasn't been answered in a straightforward manner.
 
2014-07-11 06:15:50 AM  

CarnySaur: All of you people who read the article so that they could make informed comments are ruining it for the rest of us who want to make fun of the family for being stupid!  That's not the Fark way!!!


Ruining it??
Have you been reading these comments?!!


/stop liking what I don't like
 
2014-07-11 06:17:15 AM  
"We've left the land of this is an adventurous trip with the family, and we've gotten into this is life and death now."

Accidentally,  the whole thing?

They dun goofed!

/This is meow said the dog reporting from San Diego
 
2014-07-11 06:18:10 AM  
"The at-fault party here was that satellite phone company," Gilleon said. "The Kaufmans did everything they were supposed to have done."


Except for the whole, ye know, have more than one means of communications in case one fails while in the open sea thousands of miles from shore.  Yeah, you pretty much did everything possible.  Good jerb.
 
2014-07-11 06:24:33 AM  
This American Life did an interview with the parents a few months back. The parents said in the interview that the sat phone company changed a crucial component without advanced notice that prevented the phone from properly communicating with other phones. Some chip or something. Because they were already underway, they never received notice of the change. If it's true, the company may bear some liability for the failure of the sat phone to work.
Either way, I'd recommend the story because it's pretty interesting.

/IAAL, but this is not my area of law. Proximate causes and such...
 
2014-07-11 06:27:06 AM  
grasping at straws.org
 
2014-07-11 06:27:55 AM  
It seems irresponsible that a sat phone could be disabled from placing even 911 calls. I thought the FCC required 911 calls to go through on sat phones no matter what, the way they do with cell phones, but maybe not, or maybe they don't need to when the customer is outside US jurisdiction.

On the other hand, "Whenever Communications LLC"? WTF? That seems to be a single-location phone store. I have a Globalstar sat phone I take camping, and the account is with Globalstar, one of the main sat phone networks...and it's pay-as-you-go so there's no chance of a missed payment cutting service. But if I were doing something excessively risky like these geniuses, I'd bring at least a second sat phone using a different network (e.g., Iridium) as a backup. A trip like that with one sat phone is underprepared. They're available for less than $500 new, and less used.
 
2014-07-11 06:39:31 AM  
Like I said before how would the sat phone sped up rescue? How would being able to use the phone  not have the Navy still charge you anyway? How did not having a working phone stop the Navy from sinking the broke down sailboat?
/Unless these new sat phones can turn into helicopters or boats, I don't see a case.
//They should be happy their baby lived. Maybe they can start up a kickstarter for bitcoins to pay the Navy
 
2014-07-11 06:40:30 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: How would the SAT provider sped up the rescue?


When he wasn't able to use the Sat phone for rescue, he had to use the transponder that sent out the mass "SOS" message to everyone, and thereby causing the coast guard and others to come running... Although I'm still surprised that it took them 3 days to get to the family...

The issue really is about the rescue costs... They just want someone else to pay for the costs of the rescue, they're not looking to get rich, which is surprising for one of these types of "I'll sue you" story...

If they'd been able to use their normal means of communication, they'd only have incurred a small cost for rescue. Since they had to use the beacon, that made the cost jump to about 10X what it could have been, then, from what I read in another article, the boat had been damaged due to the storm as well as during the rescue, so instead of letting the boat become a potential hazard to other ships and wildlife, they scuttled it...
 
2014-07-11 06:41:26 AM  

T Baggins: It seems irresponsible that a sat phone could be disabled from placing even 911 calls. I thought the FCC required 911 calls to go through on sat phones no matter what, the way they do with cell phones, but maybe not, or maybe they don't need to when the customer is outside US jurisdiction.

On the other hand, "Whenever Communications LLC"? WTF? That seems to be a single-location phone store. I have a Globalstar sat phone I take camping, and the account is with Globalstar, one of the main sat phone networks...and it's pay-as-you-go so there's no chance of a missed payment cutting service. But if I were doing something excessively risky like these geniuses, I'd bring at least a second sat phone using a different network (e.g., Iridium) as a backup. A trip like that with one sat phone is underprepared. They're available for less than $500 new, and less used.


I can't speak for sat phones, but I know on mobile (aka cell) phones, even if you remove the SIM card or disable service on the device, you can still make an emergency call. That isn't to say that I can take an AT&T phone to the UK and dial 999, but my phone can still dial 911 if I eat the SIM card.
 
2014-07-11 06:45:53 AM  

Arcturus72: drjekel_mrhyde: How would the SAT provider sped up the rescue?

When he wasn't able to use the Sat phone for rescue, he had to use the transponder that sent out the mass "SOS" message to everyone, and thereby causing the coast guard and others to come running... Although I'm still surprised that it took them 3 days to get to the family...

The issue really is about the rescue costs... They just want someone else to pay for the costs of the rescue, they're not looking to get rich, which is surprising for one of these types of "I'll sue you" story...

If they'd been able to use their normal means of communication, they'd only have incurred a small cost for rescue. Since they had to use the beacon, that made the cost jump to about 10X what it could have been, then, from what I read in another article, the boat had been damaged due to the storm as well as during the rescue, so instead of letting the boat become a potential hazard to other ships and wildlife, they scuttled it...


As you point out, it's about the cost of the rescue. Neither the US Navy nor the Coast Guard does that kind of thing for free. More, even if they had had a working sat phone, rescue would have still taken time--maybe even more, since a transponder screams distress, while a phone call more sort of says it loudly.

I hope that the judge sees this as people saying "I demand someone else pay for our stupidity" and dismisses post haste.

/The kid? Hope he's doing fine
 
2014-07-11 06:49:00 AM  

darch: Another set of smug self-involved parents doing something stupid with their little resource-sucking sack of protoplasm. Terrific. Next thing you know, these assholes will be sitting next to my wife and I in a fine restaurant while babby screams, "MOMMY!!!" over and over and over and over again.


Come on, that's not fair. These are the sorts of people who would never let their child scream "MOMMY" over and over again.

They're World Travelers. Their kid would be screaming something like "आमा!!!" over and over again because they would have ensured he'd been exposed to Nepalese or some such shiat, and also he'd be free-ranging it with no diaper, pissing and defecating all over the restaurant, because it's more natural. Duh!
 
Skr
2014-07-11 06:50:10 AM  
When I read the original article, I thought it was a very bad idea to bring a baby out to sea- sick or not.
The sat phone provider cutting out did not "start the chain of events" of bad decisions.
 
2014-07-11 06:58:48 AM  

darch: Another set of smug self-involved parents doing something stupid with their little resource-sucking sack of protoplasm. Terrific. Next thing you know, these assholes will be sitting next to my wife and I in a fine restaurant while babby screams, "MOMMY!!!" over and over and over and over again.


Oh, come on now. I can't imagine crying babies linger around the valet station and coat check for too long. You'll manage.
 
2014-07-11 07:02:32 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: darch: Another set of smug self-involved parents doing something stupid with their little resource-sucking sack of protoplasm. Terrific. Next thing you know, these assholes will be sitting next to my wife and I in a fine restaurant while babby screams, "MOMMY!!!" over and over and over and over again.

Come on, that's not fair. These are the sorts of people who would never let their child scream "MOMMY" over and over again.

They're World Travelers. Their kid would be screaming something like "आमा!!!" over and over again because they would have ensured he'd been exposed to Nepalese or some such shiat, and also he'd be free-ranging it with no diaper, pissing and defecating all over the restaurant, because it's more natural. Duh!


Know what else is natural in that situation? Strangling the parents for exposing the rest of ius to that crap.

I read an article in a psychology publication about kids who are never made to wear diapers. Turns out that those kids grow up to not really understand limits. And the kids whose parents do the whole "potty on command" stuff? They turn out to be neurotic, self-obsessed, and quite frankly OCD, constantly worried that someone tells them to do something and having to comply.

/In diapers until I was 2
//Potty trained easier than my two siblings
///Was going to end with slashies, but...

CSB: I was at Denny's one night with my mother, two brothers, and their kids. Youngest one was three and still in diapers. She shiats herself--we all knew it--but my brother just sat there eating his pancakes. My mother had to loudly and exasperatedly tell him to go change his daughter, and that was after he announced she would be fine for a while...smelling of shiat.

That was three years ago. Kid still wets the bed and wears pull ups when she's at my mother's house.

I pray that--when I adopt--I will be a better parent than my brother and my father.
 
2014-07-11 07:07:11 AM  
F*ck these people.
 
2014-07-11 07:11:26 AM  

optikeye: The headline is misleading. FTA it's a satellite phone. Not a 'cell phone'.

A satellite phone has a higher level of expectation of service; because of it's nature it's used in remote location where their might not be another other commutation available---especially in emergency situation.

FTA..the Phone was deactivated by the service by mistake.

If there was an error on the service's part..that's a valid point.


An excellent point. It's also probably why you shouldn't willingly put yourself in a position where your link to civilization has a single point of failure, when you have an infant/toddler child.
 
2014-07-11 07:13:13 AM  
Maybe next time just let these idiots drown.
 
2014-07-11 07:14:48 AM  
I listened to the episode of This American Life that was dedicated to this family and their story...or as much of it as I could take.
When you start describing your young child's ears as "smelling like cheese" and don't immediately decide to go for help, you lose me.
 
2014-07-11 07:21:05 AM  
How does this change the fact that the single biggest point of failure was bringing a 1 year old onboard of a sailboat 1000 miles from shore?

Also, I bet you that the satellite phone provider has one of those stickers on the phone that says "Do not rely on satellite communications in case of emergency." You know, like Skype and a million of other comm services.
 
2014-07-11 07:24:08 AM  

maram500: Arcturus72: drjekel_mrhyde: How would the SAT provider sped up the rescue?

When he wasn't able to use the Sat phone for rescue, he had to use the transponder that sent out the mass "SOS" message to everyone, and thereby causing the coast guard and others to come running... Although I'm still surprised that it took them 3 days to get to the family...

The issue really is about the rescue costs... They just want someone else to pay for the costs of the rescue, they're not looking to get rich, which is surprising for one of these types of "I'll sue you" story...

If they'd been able to use their normal means of communication, they'd only have incurred a small cost for rescue. Since they had to use the beacon, that made the cost jump to about 10X what it could have been, then, from what I read in another article, the boat had been damaged due to the storm as well as during the rescue, so instead of letting the boat become a potential hazard to other ships and wildlife, they scuttled it...

As you point out, it's about the cost of the rescue. Neither the US Navy nor the Coast Guard does that kind of thing for free. More, even if they had had a working sat phone, rescue would have still taken time--maybe even more, since a transponder screams distress, while a phone call more sort of says it loudly.

I hope that the judge sees this as people saying "I demand someone else pay for our stupidity" and dismisses post haste.

/The kid? Hope he's doing fine


None of that sounds like the satphone made any difference. They still needed the rescue regardless. It wasn't like the phone could dispense baby-saving drugs or fix their damaged boat.
 
2014-07-11 07:26:05 AM  

Gaambit: I listened to the episode of This American Life that was dedicated to this family and their story...or as much of it as I could take.
When you start describing your young child's ears as "smelling like cheese" and don't immediately decide to go for help, you lose me.


They lost me when they chose "Whenever LLC" as their only communication source.
 
2014-07-11 07:37:21 AM  

BizarreMan: Right, because it's the cell phone providers fault that the phone stopped working?


First, satellite phone.  Second, when they switched SIM card providers, they snail-mailed the cards to their subscribers, then turned off the old cards.

I'll repeat that - they did this for satellite phones.  Which are really only used by people who can't get regular mail service wherever they are going with their satellite phones.

Gaambit: I listened to the episode of This American Life that was dedicated to this family and their story...or as much of it as I could take.
When you start describing your young child's ears as "smelling like cheese" and don't immediately decide to go for help, you lose me.


It was painful to listen to, but the context that followed was helpful.  When you call for help, you lose your boat.  So making that call is a very high bar to hurdle.  And they did have the antibiotics to treat infections.
 
2014-07-11 07:40:09 AM  
They didn't have a radio? Or was it knocked out, too?
 
Displayed 50 of 264 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report