“His use of a sharpened and deadly fin was reckless and displayed a wanton disregard for the safety of others.”
For the first time I can think of, or remember, US courts have been asked to adjudicate on whether or not dropping in on a man and belting him with a leashless log is grounds for damages.
In the case of Olson v Saville (2024), Mark Olson (belted) and Patrick Saville (no leash) were surfing at Mirimar Beach in Montecito, a town described as “a dizzying combination of old wealth, new wealth and outrageous physical beauty that has begun to attract an ever-wider range of dreamers.”
Olson caught a wave, Saville “appeared out of nowhere” and dropped in forcing Olson “to make a fast turn correction to his left toward the beach.”
Olson then “grabbed both [of] his board rails (aka sides) and pushed himself and the nose of the board slightly down and into the foam pile of whitewater toward the deeper water and away from respondent.”
Saville was still riding towards the beach but soon wiped out and his leashless board “propelled backwards and struck Olson’s torso and back.”
Olson sued for negligence.
“(Saville) intentionally entered the wave and intentionally cut off (Olson’s) path of travel, thereby forcing (Olson) to exit the wave.”
Further, Saville’s “failure to use a leash to control [his] longboard” and his use of a “sharpened and deadly fin was reckless and displayed a wanton disregard for the safety of others.”
Saville used the assumption of risk doctrine as his defence. As far as excuses go, it’s a doozy.
“An individual is barred from recovering damages for an injury sustained when he or she voluntarily exposed him or herself to a known danger.”
Now here’s where it gets good. Saville called in Ian “Kangag” Cairns, the testosterone-squirting big-wave icon who said that surfing is an “extreme sport with many inherent risks…Because ‘wipeouts’ are so common, it is a known risk that a surfer may collide with another surfer, or another surfer’s board.”
Kanga, a baseball-bat swinging, send-the-king-of-the-Hui to jail hell-raiser, said surfing is underwritten by an etiquette although “violating this surfing etiquette is common among surfers.”
Kanga said that “many longboard surfers particularly enjoy the challenge and freedom of surfing without a leash” ‘cause legropes “interfere with their footwork and speed.”
He also added that fins “are very sharp and can inflict significant injury.”
How could a court not be swayed?
But here comes Shaun Tomson, Kanga’s old sparring partner from those fabulous mid-seventies Hawaiian winters, on the side of Mark Olson.
Tomson disagreed with Kanga and said that Saville’s conduct was indeed reckless.
“Over time, the sport of surfing has adopted the Surfing Code and Rules of Etiquette,” Tomson told the court. “Surfers have a self-managed obligation to observe the Surfers Code and Rules of Etiquette and not increase the risk of harm to others in the water.”
Tomson said that Saville’s disregard of surfing’s rules was a “conscious and wanton reckless disregard” for another surfer’s safety.
On and on it goes, read it all here.
Anyway, who do you think the court sided with, Kanga or Shaun?
Kanga!
Leashless boards ok!
Good news or have the gates to hell just swung open?
