Two people hurt jumping from Topock bridge.

[charlyox]

Bad timing:

Mohave Daily News

August 09, 2016.

Two seriously hurt when man jumps from bridge into boat

TOPOCK Two people were seriously injured Saturday when a man jumping from a bridge into the Colorado River instead landed on a passenger in a boat.
According to the Mohave County Sheriff?s Office, Kenneth Wenger, 20, of Canyon Country, Calif., and Danielle Rose Kanizo, of Oak Park, Calif., were hospitalized after the incident that took place around 4 p.m. Saturday near the BSNF Railway bridge that spans the Colorado River between Topock and Needles.
Witnesses told responding deputies that Wenger was attempting to jump from the bridge into the river below just as a 21-foot boat emerged from under the bridge. Wenger landed on Kanizo on the bow of the boat then glanced into the water.
The boat operator and other passengers reportedly pulled Wenger from the water. He was unconscious.
Wenger was taken by helicopter to Sunrise Medical Center in Las Vegas. Kanizo was taken by Golden Shores Fire Department personnel to Colorado River Medical Center in Needles.
No condition information on either was available.
According to the sheriff?s department report, Wenger was among a small group of people jumping from the bridge into the water. No drugs or alcohol were found in his system.
No one aboard the boat knew Wenger, the sheriff?s office report stated. They reportedly did not see him as he prepared to jump into the water as the boat traveled under the bridge.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff?s Department also responded to the scene

 

[RitcheyRch]

http://www.riverdavesplace.com/forums/showthread.php?153464-Bad-accident-in-front-of-us

 

[cicchetti_24]

Oh great he is from our town :cool

 

[Flying_Lavey]

Oh great he is from our town :cool

It seemed like a Santa Clarita Valley thing to do. Lol!

 

[cicchetti_24]

It seemed like a Santa Clarita Valley thing to do. Lol!

lol prick :finger

 

[Flying_Lavey]

lol prick :finger

Since he was from Canyon Country particularly, at least he probably didn't yell "Awesometown" on his way down like so many Valencia natives do. Lol!

 

[cicchetti_24]

Since he was from Canyon Country particularly, at least he probably didn't yell "Awesometown" on his way down like so many Valencia natives do. Lol!

I've never done that... Damn you Ferry and the stupid nickname!

 

[Rajobigguy]

Since he was from Canyon Country particularly, at least he probably didn't yell "Awesometown" on his way down like so many Valencia natives do. Lol!

Now that right there is funny.
:lmao

 

[RiverDave]

Oh great he is from our town :cool

If the shoe fits?

RD

 

[cicchetti_24]

If the shoe fits?

RD

Touche :grumble:

 

[McRib]

Sad part is the boat owner will be the one to get sued and on the insurance hook for the jumpers damages.

 

[plaster dave]

Sad part is the boat owner will be the one to get sued and on the insurance hook for the jumpers damages.

I would think he could sue the railroad for not having better security to stop people from getting access to jump.

 

[McRib]

I would think he could sue the railroad for not having better security to stop people from getting access to jump.

Oh them too. Just add them to the list of deep pockets.

 

[5oclocksomewhere]

Only fucking morons come from Santa Clarita....

 

[Not Allways A Deck]

Only fucking morons come from Santa Clarita....

Maybe the Cameras took a picture and will send him a fee to pay for speed falling fromthe bridge? Or too big of a wave?

 

[5oclocksomewhere]

Maybe the Cameras took a picture and will send him a fee to pay for speed falling fromthe bridge? Or too big of a wave?

Probably a bad joke on my behalf. I was waiting for Riverking to chime in hook line & sinker. I'm actually from Santa Clarita so I was playing around. Prayers and thought to the young victims. They weren't doing anything malicious just young kids being dumb and paying a heavy price.

 

[Hardly Satisfied]

What in the world are they doing.

 

[SRice]

I would think he could sue the railroad for not having better security to stop people from getting access to jump.

Jumping from the bridge into that congested waterway puts both swimmers and boaters at risk. Several weeks ago a young man disappeared from the same spot and was found dead down river. Now a jumper has landed on a boat and injured a passenger in that boat. Swimmers in this area are also an argument for continuing to restrict this as a no wake zone rather than perhaps raising the speed to minimum wake as several posters would like. I have been asking BNSF for nearly two years to secure the ladder which kids use to access the bridge and hang their ropes. A hinged and locking panel to cover the bridge would be an effective deterrent to this trespass. I believe the unsecured access ladder constitutes what is legally know as an "attractive nuisance" and opens the railroad up to lawsuit if a jumper or boater is injured. If you have any of the same concerns, [email protected] is the BNSF manager.

 

[MSum661]

Jumping from the bridge into that congested waterway puts both swimmers and boaters at risk. Several weeks ago a young man disappeared from the same spot and was found dead down river. Now a jumper has landed on a boat and injured a passenger in that boat. Swimmers in this area are also an argument for continuing to restrict this as a no wake zone rather than perhaps raising the speed to minimum wake as several posters would like. I have been asking BNSF for nearly two years to secure the ladder which kids use to access the bridge and hang their ropes. A hinged and locking panel to cover the bridge would be an effective deterrent to this trespass. I believe the unsecured access ladder constitutes what is legally know as an "attractive nuisance" and opens the railroad up to lawsuit if a jumper or boater is injured. If you have any of the same concerns, [email protected] is the BNSF manager.

Just out of curiosity. Did the Refuge Camera's mounted on the Railroad Bridge happen to capture any sequence of all of this?

 

[alexJ]

What in the world are they doing.

here's the video.. of what they were doing/what happened...
https://www.instagram.com/p/BI0IJIojtqC/

 

[rivrrts429]

Jumping from the bridge into that congested waterway puts both swimmers and boaters at risk. Several weeks ago a young man disappeared from the same spot and was found dead down river. Now a jumper has landed on a boat and injured a passenger in that boat. Swimmers in this area are also an argument for continuing to restrict this as a no wake zone rather than perhaps raising the speed to minimum wake as several posters would like. I have been asking BNSF for nearly two years to secure the ladder which kids use to access the bridge and hang their ropes. A hinged and locking panel to cover the bridge would be an effective deterrent to this trespass. I believe the unsecured access ladder constitutes what is legally know as an "attractive nuisance" and opens the railroad up to lawsuit if a jumper or boater is injured. If you have any of the same concerns, [email protected] is the BNSF manager.

It seems there is always a "but" followed by a vague reason to continue to tighten boater enforcement.

Let's not forget that none of this occurs without the trespasser leaping off the bridge and taking the risk that he did. The boat operator, the boat itself, the girl severely injured riding in the boat, or the jumper himself are not at risk without the jumper taking his actions first. The boat operator appears to be a reaction to the action of the jumper.

A no wake zone or not changes nothing in this situation without the trespasser/jumpers actions first. Same goes for the jumper a week or two ago. Maybe the enforcement needs to be directed at the jumper before the boater in these scenarios. A few tickets to a trespasser or two might make the difference.

 

[MSum661]

It seems there is always a "but" followed by a vague reason to continue to tighten boater enforcement.

Let's not forget that none of this occurs without the trespasser leaping off the bridge and taking the risk that he did. The boat operator, the boat itself, the girl severely injured riding in the boat, or the jumper himself are not at risk without the jumper taking his actions first. The boat operator appears to be a reaction to the action of the jumper.

A no wake zone or not changes nothing in this situation without the trespasser/jumpers actions first. Same goes for the jumper a week or two ago. Maybe the enforcement needs to be directed at the jumper before the boater in these scenarios. A few tickets to a trespasser or two might make the difference.

Wasn't there a guy not to long ago cruising his SXS along side the tracks just mailed a Fed. Ticket with a fine for trespassing?
Also, if the railroad is suppose to be responsible for blocking access to their bridge ladder.....does that mean they need to block or fence all access to all railroad tracks and bridges all across America?

Doesn't seem realistic. You can trip and fall walking on railroad tracks and land up just as seriously injured, IMO.

 

[Mr. C]

It seems there is always a "but" followed by a vague reason to continue to tighten boater enforcement.

Let's not forget that none of this occurs without the trespasser leaping off the bridge and taking the risk that he did. The boat operator, the boat itself, the girl severely injured riding in the boat, or the jumper himself are not at risk without the jumper taking his actions first. The boat operator appears to be a reaction to the action of the jumper.

A no wake zone or not changes nothing in this situation without the trespasser/jumpers actions first. Same goes for the jumper a week or two ago. Maybe the enforcement needs to be directed at the jumper before the boater in these scenarios. A few tickets to a trespasser or two might make the difference.

X2.

And it appears the boat that was landed on was at no wake speed, just sayin'

 

[rivrrts429]

Wasn't there a guy not to long ago cruising his SXS along side the tracks just mailed a Fed. Ticket with a fine for trespassing?
Also, if the railroad is suppose to be responsible for blocking access to their bridge ladder.....does that mean they need to block or fence all access to all railroad tracks and bridges all across America?

Doesn't seem realistic. You can trip and fall walking on railroad tracks and land up just as seriously injured, IMO.

What I think is... BNSF clearly doesn't give a shit about SRice and there isn't much SRice can do about it. Therefore the boater becomes next in line and carries the responsibility for all the dumb fucks jumping from this bridge.

I think that instead of SRice having boater checkpoints they need to focus on the swimmers for a bit. Their section of river has more deaths from jumpers than boaters in the last two weeks. That's a trend...

 

[plaster dave]

It seems there is always a "but" followed by a vague reason to continue to tighten boater enforcement.

Let's not forget that none of this occurs without the trespasser leaping off the bridge and taking the risk that he did. The boat operator, the boat itself, the girl severely injured riding in the boat, or the jumper himself are not at risk without the jumper taking his actions first. The boat operator appears to be a reaction to the action of the jumper.

A no wake zone or not changes nothing in this situation without the trespasser/jumpers actions first. Same goes for the jumper a week or two ago. Maybe the enforcement needs to be directed at the jumper before the boater in these scenarios. A few tickets to a trespasser or two might make the difference.

X2 hell if it wasn't a no wake zone the kid never would have thought about jumping from there into boat traffic. I think this falls on law enforcement. Lol

 

[SRice]

It seems there is always a "but" followed by a vague reason to continue to tighten boater enforcement.

Let's not forget that none of this occurs without the trespasser leaping off the bridge and taking the risk that he did. The boat operator, the boat itself, the girl severely injured riding in the boat, or the jumper himself are not at risk without the jumper taking his actions first. The boat operator appears to be a reaction to the action of the jumper.

A no wake zone or not changes nothing in this situation without the trespasser/jumpers actions first. Same goes for the jumper a week or two ago. Maybe the enforcement needs to be directed at the jumper before the boater in these scenarios. A few tickets to a trespasser or two might make the difference.

I totally agree with you. However, the bridge and adjacent beach are BNSF right-of-way; the water under them is where USFWS jurisdiction begins. Legally, that means that BNSF law enforcement and MCSO need to respond to the trespass issue.

 

[rivrrts429]

I totally agree with you. However, the bridge and adjacent beach are BNSF right-of-way; the water under them is where USFWS jurisdiction begins. Legally, that means that BNSF law enforcement and MCSO need to respond to the trespass issue.

Seems your voice would be heard the loudest out of any of us picking up the phone and making the call, no?

There are two deaths in two weeks as a result of trespassers on the bridge along with a girl maimed and an innocent boat operator who can't unseen what he saw.

 

[cofooter]

I think what everyone is trying to say is that the cameras are pointing at the wrong people if the intent is really to improve safety.

 

[plaster dave]

I think what everyone is trying to say is that the cameras are pointing at the wrong people if the intent is really to improve safety.

No way to get revenue from kids with no cf or az numbers. Lol

 

[USMC2010]

Seems your voice would be heard the loudest out of any of us picking up the phone and making the call, no?

There are two deaths in two weeks as a result of trespassers on the bridge along with a girl maimed and an innocent boat operator who can't unseen what he saw.

Two deaths?

 

[rivrrts429]

Two deaths?

My bad...

One death and two people seriously injured in two weeks. All as a result of trespassers.

 

[Bigbore500r]

No way to get revenue from kids with no cf or az numbers. Lol

Well that's an easy fix.
Where should we put them? Across their back or chest? [emoji3]

 

[JD D05]

After this I will be paying very close attention anytime I am going under the bridge. I can not believe these people jump off that into such shallow water, do they just not know or really just that stupid?

 

[SRice]

Seems your voice would be heard the loudest out of any of us picking up the phone and making the call, no?

There are two deaths in two weeks as a result of trespassers on the bridge along with a girl maimed and an innocent boat operator who can't unseen what he saw.

I have emailed BNSF with my concerns after both incidents and have been trying to persuade them to deal with this issue for two years. One voice is easily ignored, but you guys clearly have political clout when you work together. It's my understanding that the Havasu Marine Association and others requested this no wake zone to protect vessels entering and departing from Topock 66 (before my time), and I doubt swimmers factored much into the original decision. However, a few people have advocated for raising the speed limit in this area to minimum wake. I think any change now would have to consider the fact that legally or not this area has become popular with swimmers and bridge jumpers. California law explicitly says that speed must be reduced to wakeless in areas where people routinely "bathe". Although the issue is on the Arizona side and Arizona lacks such a law, boaters traveling on the CA side of the river are still close enough to this activity to be affected.

 

[rivrrts429]

I have emailed BNSF with my concerns after both incidents and have been trying to persuade them to deal with this issue for two years. One voice is easily ignored, but you guys clearly have political clout when you work together. It's my understanding that the Havasu Marine Association and others requested this no wake zone to protect vessels entering and departing from Topock 66 (before my time), and I doubt swimmers factored much into the original decision. However, a few people have advocated for raising the speed limit in this area to minimum wake. I think any change now would have to consider the fact that legally or not this area has become popular with swimmers and bridge jumpers. California law explicitly says that speed must be reduced to wakeless in areas where people routinely "bathe". Although the issue is on the Arizona side and Arizona lacks such a law, boaters traveling on the CA side of the river are still close enough to this activity to be affected.

It could be argued in this case that a minimum wake zone would've saved both boat rider and trespasser from their injuries lol

I'm not arguing the no wake zone at that location. It's a secondary issue with this incident specifically.

My challenge to you is the enforcement level within your jurisdiction and how you can apply it to the trespassers once they've leapt from the bridge and landed in your water.

It sounds like there is too much of the proverbial red tape. There are all kinds of reasons why you can't but little to none of why you can. If deaths aren't an issue for BNSF and/or the Sheriff's department I'm not sure there is anything that will change the statistics, no wake zone or not.

 

[SRice]

It could be argued in this case that a minimum wake zone would've saved both boat rider and trespasser from their injuries lol

I'm not arguing the no wake zone at that location. It's a secondary issue with this incident specifically.

My challenge to you is the enforcement level within your jurisdiction and how you can apply it to the trespassers once they've leapt from the bridge and landed in your water.

It sounds like there is too much of the proverbial red tape. There are all kinds of reasons why you can't but little to none of why you can. If deaths aren't an issue for BNSF and/or the Sheriff's department I'm not sure there is anything that will change the statistics, no wake zone or not.

In the course of this conversation it has occurred to me that USFWS MIGHT have authority to say no swimming in this area, even if we do not have jurisdiction over the point of entry. I'd be happy to propose that to my policy makers but honestly I think they are going to be hesitant to consider anything new in the context of current debate over draft boating comparability determination at Havasu. If boaters requested this regulation I believe it would carry more weight.

 

[rivrrts429]

In the course of this conversation it has occurred to me that USFWS MIGHT have authority to say no swimming in this area, even if we do not have jurisdiction over the point of entry. I'd be happy to propose that to my policy makers but honestly I think they are going to be hesitant to consider anything new in the context of current debate over draft boating comparability determination at Havasu. If boaters requested this regulation I believe it would carry more weight.

Again, swimming isn't the issue. Neither are boaters. A few TRESPASSERS are the issue.

Find a solution to the trespassers and none of this is a conversation. I'm not going to screw all swimmers when a few trespassers are the issue.

You are law enforcement. Brainstorm with your counterparts at the other agencies and find a solution rather than hoping someone else takes the lead. This is a great example of how government can hinder more than help safety of others. BNSF also has a police department.

 

[traquer]

From what little I know of personal injury and insurance claims, my understanding is it would play out like this:

- Kid screwed up, but he got hurt big time. He needs money for doctors but also to be compensated for a period of loss of working ability, and the lawyers will also look to compensate for pain and suffering and emotional distress/fobia of bridges/railroad/water etc etc. There is a presumably insured boat involved, and there is a big corporation (railroad) involved so the kid's lawyer will for sure look to extract some money from these parties under some type of negligence or premises law.

- The girl in the boat got injured too, but was a passenger in the boat. Her compensation from the boater's insurance is straightforward but hopefully she gets a nice check from the railroad's insurance too since she's completely innocent.

- Given all of the above, the boat owner will probably get the least, but if he needs a new boat etc. I'm sure his insurance will try to go after the railroad as well rather than pay him out under comprehensive coverage or whatnot.

Shitty deal all around but I'm sure the railroad or whoever is responsible for that property will pay for this. The bridge is in a very popular area with known accidents. If this happened out in the middle of nowhere that's another thing but here it was just a matter of time

 

[outboardrick]

I sure hope the poor boat driver hadn't had a beer.....:grumble:

 

[Flying_Lavey]

From what little I know of personal injury and insurance claims, my understanding is it would play out like this:

- Kid screwed up, but he got hurt big time. He needs money for doctors but also to be compensated for a period of loss of working ability, and the lawyers will also look to compensate for pain and suffering and emotional distress/fobia of bridges/railroad/water etc etc. There is a presumably insured boat involved, and there is a big corporation (railroad) involved so the kid's lawyer will for sure look to extract some money from these parties under some type of negligence or premises law.

- The girl in the boat got injured too, but was a passenger in the boat. Her compensation from the boater's insurance is straightforward but hopefully she gets a nice check from the railroad's insurance too since she's completely innocent.

- Given all of the above, the boat owner will probably get the least, but if he needs a new boat etc. I'm sure his insurance will try to go after the railroad as well rather than pay him out under comprehensive coverage or whatnot.

Shitty deal all around but I'm sure the railroad or whoever is responsible for that property will pay for this. The bridge is in a very popular area with known accidents. If this happened out in the middle of nowhere that's another thing but here it was just a matter of time

Given what SRice said about BNSF's refusal to address the trespass issue, a lawsuit against BNSF may be what is required to properly cease the trespassing issue.

What makes a large corporation pay attention more so than a large loss of money?

 

[SoCalDave]

This is on the Instagram reply's...

 

[SRice]

Again, swimming isn't the issue. Neither are boaters. A few TRESPASSERS are the issue.

Find a solution to the trespassers and none of this is a conversation. I'm not going to screw all swimmers when a few trespassers are the issue.

You are law enforcement. Brainstorm with your counterparts at the other agencies and find a solution rather than hoping someone else takes the lead. This is a great example of how government can hinder more than help safety of others. BNSF also has a police department.

The solution to the trespass issue is to cover and lock the access ladder and then take down the ropes. I made that suggestion to both the local supervisor and the Kingman-based BNSF criminal investigator. But no local enforcement agency can do that, just like I cannot go on your property to put up a child barrier around your private swimming pool. But if the community demands some change, responsible property owners sometimes respond. This may well result in a lawsuit and perhaps BNSF will secure the structure after realizing their potential civil liability.

 

[rivrrts429]

The solution to the trespass issue is to cover and lock the access ladder and then take down the ropes. I made that suggestion to both the local supervisor and the Kingman-based BNSF criminal investigator. But no local enforcement agency can do that, just like I cannot go on your property to put up a child barrier around your private swimming pool. But if the community demands some change, responsible property owners sometimes respond. This may well result in a lawsuit and perhaps BNSF will secure the structure after realizing their potential civil liability.

Or we can send them a link to this thread putting them on blast.[emoji2]

Anybody can sue them, including your department, to get them to move off their asses. Unreal that a death isn't enough already.

Please don't suggest anymore laws, Waaayy too many already lol

 

[JRS1939]

My bad...

One death and two people seriously injured in two weeks. All as a result of trespassers.

Yes I'm pretty sure there has been 2 deaths...

 

[rivrrts429]

You know, there wasn't any of these problems before it was a no-wake zone.

Isn't this the area the little girl was killed in the head-on. Seemed the no wake was a direct result of that.

 

[traquer]

Just did a Google search. I really hope the innocent girl in the boat at least gets compensated fairly if she suffered a serious injury.

"Lawsuits against railroads are among the most complex, most vigorously defended, yet most rewarding endeavors with which a trial lawyer can be involved. The complexities include a hundred years of case law, special state statutes covering everything from venue to duty, federal preemption, federal statutes and regulations, complex mechanical issues and terms which are foreign to most lawyers and jurors, and extraordinarily talented defense counsel. Despite the obstacles, the fact remains that many people are willing to hold railroads liable and when they do, the verdicts are often surprisingly large. "

 

[Yellowboat]

interesting thing, trespassing on railroad property is a federal felony ( very old law) its almost never enforced, but in this case it might be.

 

[rivermobster]

Fine lines here...

You have to be careful when getting the railroad Directly involved. Anyone remember what happened at Glamis, when the railroad just had enough??

They closed down wash road completely. Fuck you, done deal. They basically shut down the washes!!!

The BLM had to come in and install a new road. New toll booth/stops came with that new road. And the fee's all went up as well.

The railroads don't like to have their buttons pushed. They push back REAL hard.

Let's just pray this never happens again.

 

[Yellowboat]

Fine lines here...

You have to be careful when getting the railroad Directly involved. Anyone remember what happened at Glamis, when the railroad just had enough??

They closed down wash road completely. Fuck you, done deal. They basically shut down the washes!!!

The BLM had to come in and install a new road. New toll booth/stops came with that new road. And the fee's all went up as well.

The railroads don't like to have their buttons pushed. They push back REAL hard.

Let's just pray this never happens again.

what should happen is the jumpers should be 100% liable for their actions, be convicted of breaking law 1D10T, and the boaters should be able to sue them for lost of a day on the water.

 

[pronstar]

Why not sue his mom for giving birth to him?

Our litigious society sickens me sometimes.

No one is responsible for this except for the idiot jumper.