passengers for hire issues

Some U.S.C. sections relevant to the discussion of these issues: SEC. 506. PASSENGER FOR HIRE. Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting between paragraphs (21) and (22) a new paragraph (21a) to read as follows: "(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly . . . .". DESCRIPTION - The determination of what constitutes the carriage of a "passenger for hire" must be made on a case by case basis. This determination is dependent upon the actual operation of a vessel and the flow of consideration as determined by the facts of each case. In general, there needs to be some form of tangible consideration or promise of performance being passed for a "passenger for hire" situation to exist. SEC. 507. CONSIDERATION. Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting between paragraphs (5) and (6) a new paragraph (5a) to read as follows: "(5a) 'consideration' means an economic benefit, inducement, right, or profit including pecuniary payment accruing to an individual, person, or entity, but not including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of the voyage, by monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage, or other supplies.". Additionally, employees or business clients that have not contributed for their carriage, and are carried for morale or entertainment purposes is not included as exchange of consideration. Harleigh Ewell Cal 31

Excellent Harleigh, thanks. I'm saving this one for future reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Harleigh Ewell To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:01 AM Subject: [Cal_Boats] passengers for hire issues Some U.S.C. sections relevant to the discussion of these issues: SEC. 506. PASSENGER FOR HIRE. Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting between paragraphs (21) and (22) a new paragraph (21a) to read as follows: "(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly . . . .". DESCRIPTION - The determination of what constitutes the carriage of a "passenger for hire" must be made on a case by case basis. This determination is dependent upon the actual operation of a vessel and the flow of consideration as determined by the facts of each case. In general, there needs to be some form of tangible consideration or promise of performance being passed for a "passenger for hire" situation to exist. SEC. 507. CONSIDERATION. Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting between paragraphs (5) and (6) a new paragraph (5a) to read as follows: "(5a) 'consideration' means an economic benefit, inducement, right, or profit including pecuniary payment accruing to an individual, person, or entity, but not including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of the voyage, by monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage, or other supplies.". Additionally, employees or business clients that have not contributed for their carriage, and are carried for morale or entertainment purposes is not included as exchange of consideration. Harleigh Ewell Cal 31

Harleigh Ewell wrote: > > Some U.S.C. sections relevant to the discussion of these issues: > > > > > "(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration > is contributed as a **condition of carriage** on the vessel, whether > directly or indirectly . . . .". > "Directly or indirectly" seems to address the charitable auction case. If somebody is paying a charity for the right to take passage on your boat, then it's indirect payment of consideration. Chris Campbell

yep. But just as they amended this to exclude shared costs charters, I think they should also exclude one-time fun trips for charities. Personally, I wouldn't think twice about it: I'd donate the ride and take 'em for a great trip. "Don't ask, don't tell." Unless you make it a constant activity, I imagine the most that would ever happen is a letter from the cg saying "stop it". My own 2 cents, of course. bw ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Campbell To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] passengers for hire issues Harleigh Ewell wrote: Some U.S.C. sections relevant to the discussion of these issues: "(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly . . . .". "Directly or indirectly" seems to address the charitable auction case. If somebody is paying a charity for the right to take passage on your boat, then it's indirect payment of consideration. Chris Campbell

Chris, I'd say it's "directly." The passenger has paid for the right to the trip on the boat, and whether they paid the boat owner or a charity that arranged the trip is irrelevant. It might be"indirectly" if the successful bidder for the trip at a charity event paid for it and then gave their trip to someone else. Harleigh From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Campbell Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:12 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] passengers for hire issues Harleigh Ewell wrote: Some U.S.C. sections relevant to the discussion of these issues: "(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly . . . .". "Directly or indirectly" seems to address the charitable auction case. If somebody is paying a charity for the right to take passage on your boat, then it's indirect payment of consideration. Chris Campbell

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@...> wrote: > > Chris, I'd say it's "directly." The passenger has paid for the right to the > trip on the boat, and whether they paid the boat owner or a charity that > arranged the trip is irrelevant. It might be"indirectly" if the successful > bidder for the trip at a charity event paid for it and then gave their trip > to someone else. Someone earlier commented that liability insurance is more important in most of these cases than the issue of license. I agree. I really wouldn't worry about these charity cruise cases. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96