|
The rafting company could use the limitation act as a defense which was created long ago to limit the liability of ship owners to the value of the vessel meaning that the plantiff could only sue for the value of the raft. This standard was created many years ago to protect ocean lines from lawsuits when travel by sea was inherently dangerous in order to make sure transportation was afforable and available. In fact there is actually some precedent for this defense for this type of case, see Keys Jet Ski Inc v. Kays(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT893 F.2d 1225; 1990 U.S. App.)
Here is a brief summary of the case:
Appellants, owners of a jet ski, filed a complaint that sought exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act (act), 46 U.S.C.S. § 181-188, after appellee parents of a child notified appellants that the child was killed while operating the rented jet ski. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the limitation claim based on an argument that the act did not apply to pleasure craft accidents. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and appellants challenged the order. The court reversed the district court because it found that the act did apply to accidents that involved pleasure craft, and remanded the complaint to the district court for additional development of facts concerning whose negligence caused the accident and whether appellants had privity or knowledge. |
|
|
Baed on my limited understanding maritime law would benefit the raft company... New 
BoaterTalk 
