By RASHAD ROLLE
Tribune News Editor
rrolle@tribunemedia.net
THE Privy Council has ruled that a Bimini marina was not responsible for stopping the theft of a docked yacht, finding that the boat’s owner — not the marina — bore the duty to guard against theft.
In a recent ruling, the Board dismissed an appeal by Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc, which had paid out $579,721.15 after the 41-foot vessel Rum N’ Coke was stolen from Bimini Bay Marina in July 2009.
The insurer had tried to recover the money from RAV Bahamas Ltd, the marina’s owner, arguing the company was negligent and that one of its employees helped facilitate the theft.
But the Privy Council agreed with the Court of Appeal that no such duty existed.
The judges said the lease for the dock showed the boat owner was responsible for keeping the vessel safe, including from theft.
“The Tenant is responsible for proper operation and mooring and taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the Boat is secure from damage from any [and] all causes including without limitation theft fire vandalism and storm,” the document said.
The Board said that clause reflected the reality of the arrangement. The marina never had control of the vessel and was not given its keys, meaning it had no role in controlling who could remove it. Because of that, the court said someone could board the boat and sail it away without going through any marina-controlled release system.
Great Lakes argued that the marina had taken on responsibility for security by having guards, cameras and a wristband system.
The Board rejected that, saying those measures did not amount to a promise to prevent theft of boats.
It also found no evidence that any failure in security caused the theft.
The judgment drew a clear line between causing harm and failing to stop harm caused by others, saying the claim against the marina was based on an alleged failure to prevent third-party wrongdoing, something the law treats cautiously.
The insurer also pointed to the actions of marina employee O’Neil Rolle, who was contacted by someone claiming to be the owner and was asked to prepare the boat for departure. He later met two men, accepted payment for his work, and watched them leave with the vessel.
The Privy Council said that did not amount to negligence.
It found no proof that Rolle unlocked the vessel and said preparing it for departure and arranging cleaning did not meaningfully assist the theft. It also noted that there was no identification system in place that he failed to follow.
Even if there had been wrongdoing, the Board said there was no proof that the theft would not have happened without his actions.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.