Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Shark Attacks in the Carolinas

Published onSep 09, 2015
Shark Attacks in the Carolinas

Shark attacks in the Carolinas this year have been more than double the average of six attacks per year.  Naturally, there has been a lot of speculation about why there are so many more attacks.  And with that speculation comes blame; who or what can be blamed.

The drought is one alleged culprit.  The drought led to a higher saline content in the shoreline waters since there was no runoff to dilute the salt water.  Most sharks prefer a higher saline content, so the sharks have been venturing into shallower waters than usual – swimming waters.

Some people claim warmer water temperature is to blame, and others find fault with tourists who do not know where it is safe to swim.  Lastly, people are blaming fishermen and pier owners.

Fishermen are essentially providing food for the sharks, whether or not sharks are their intended prey.  Fishermen throw buckets of chum or other bait into the water to attract fish.  The chum attracts sharks as do the fish, which the fishermen seek to catch. As a result, these fishermen create feeding grounds for sharks.  This becomes dangerous when swimming areas and fishing areas are next to each other. Furthermore, pier owners are blamed for letting the fishermen use their piers.

While it is easy to blame fishermen for drawing sharks to an area, and to blame pier owners for allowing the fishing, legally, the issue is far more complicated.  Liability in tort law stems from a duty of one person to another person. A duty of reasonable care always exists between two people. However, that is all that exists between a pier owner and a swimmer because pier owners do not own the waters around their pier. Technically, the waters at issue are public trust waters, meaning that they are held by the state in trust for the public.  As a result, pier owners are not likely to be liable for a shark attack in the public waters below.

However, it is possible that fishermen could be violating their general duty of care by attracting sharks.  It is also possible that the pier owners could be liable because they knew of the fishermen’s behavior.  Both of these possibilities would depend heavily on the facts of the case, the foreseeability of the harm, and the causal connection between the fishing and the injury.

In truth, many factors are likely to have led to the increased shark attacks, a confluence of events, and thus none are directly responsible.  This weakens evidence of a causal connection between the defendant-fisherman’s actions and the harm to the plaintiff.  With so many factors at play it would be difficult to blame them, legally. Additionally, in North Carolina the pure contributory negligence rule would bar a shark attack victim from recovering damages if he is even one percent at fault for his own injury.

One solution, for pier owners and fishermen alike, is to post signs that warn swimmers away from fishing areas. Regulating the times and places where fishermen may fish would also be prudent.  With the increase in attacks, pier owners and fishermen are on notice, as are swimmers – attacks are more foreseeable.

 

* Carolyn Trespasz is a third year law student at Wake Forest University School of Law. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Lehigh University. Upon graduation, she intends to practice construction law.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?