Tubing Injury Claims in Ontario: When Is the Boat Operator Responsible?

Yes. A person injured while tubing behind a boat in Ontario can bring a claim where unsafe operation caused the injury. A boat operator can be responsible for swinging a tube into another boat or dock, driving too aggressively, ignoring requests to stop, or towing without the observer required by federal boating rules.

Most people who go tubing expect speed, spray, bumps and the possibility of falling into open water. They do not expect to be driven into an obstacle or exposed to a danger that the boat operator should have avoided. The rider is not steering. The rider cannot slow the boat, change course or control the arc of the tube during a turn.

Falls during ordinary tubing rides are not an indicator that someone was negligent. A serious injury caused by aggressive towing, poor lookout, a dangerous route or failure to follow the rules for towing people behind a boat can be very different.

Foster Injury Law is able to present individuals and families in serious boating injury claims across Ontario. Learn more about claims handled by our Ontario boating accident lawyers.

Why Tubing Accidents Can Cause Serious Injuries

A tube being pulled behind a boat does not always follow the boat’s path. If the the boat turns, the tube swings outward in a wide arc and move quickly across water that the boat itself has already cleared.

That movement is part of what makes tubing enjoyable, but it is also what makes a poorly planned turn dangerous.

A driver passing near a dock, anchored boat, buoy or shoreline cannot consider only whether the boat will clear the obstacle. The driver must account for the riders trailing behind. A turn that is safe for the boat can pull the tube directly into another vessel or fixed object.

Serious injuries can also occur without a collision. A rider can be ejected during a sharp turn or after the tube crosses a wake at speed. Striking the water forcefully can cause fractures, shoulder and neck injuries, head trauma, internal injuries or loss of consciousness. A person who enters the water injured or disoriented can also be at risk of drowning or being struck by another vessel.

The operator controls the speed, route and turns. In a serious tubing injury claim, those decisions are usually central to determining responsibility.

Woodbury v. Woodbury: Catastrophic Injury While Tubing on Rice Lake

The Ontario decision in Woodbury v. Woodbury, 2021 ONSC 8620 shows how devastating a tubing accident can be.

Nine-year-old Nash Woodbury was being pulled on an inflatable tube behind a motorboat on Rice Lake. Another child was also on the tube with him. Nash’s father, Robert Woodbury, was operating the boat, while an adult passenger was acting as the spotter.

Another boat was stopped near a dock with children on a tube behind it. As Robert’s boat approached, people in the stopped boat yelled and sounded a horn to get his attention. The evidence accepted by the court was that Robert was looking backwards toward the children on his tube rather than ahead at the water in front of him. When he finally noticed the other boat, he turned sharply. His boat avoided the collision, but the tube swung outward and struck the other vessel.

Nash suffered a catastrophic traumatic brain injury. He required surgery for skull fractures and was left with permanent cognitive impairment, a seizure disorder and the need for constant supervision and care.

Robert did not defend the lawsuit and was noted in default. This meant that he was deemed to admit the factual allegations pleaded against him. The court found that his negligence caused Nash’s injuries. The admitted facts included excessive speed, failure to keep a proper lookout, failure to keep the boat under proper control and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the tube from colliding with the other boat.

The court also determined that Robert acted recklessly. The reasons addressed several facts, including that he was travelling too fast for the circumstances, the tow rope exceeded the manufacturer’s warning, open alcohol was found on the boat, he was too close to shore, and he was looking backward at the children immediately before the emergency turn even though a spotter was already aboard.

Despite those findings, the court held that the liability limit under the Marine Liability Act still applied. Proving negligence or even reckless operation was not enough to defeat the statutory limit. The court had to find that Robert acted recklessly with knowledge that the loss would probably result. It found that the evidence did not meet that high threshold.

Nash’s damages were assessed far above $1 million. However, his and his mother’s combined recovery was limited to the $1 million statutory limit that applied at the time of the accident. The court awarded $990,000 to Nash and $10,000 to his mother.

Woodbury is important as a boating injury case since it illustrates both sides of a serious tubing claim. Unsafe operation can leave a rider with life-altering injuries. At the same time, federal maritime liability rules can sharply restrict recovery even where the conduct was reckless and the injured person’s losses greatly exceed the available limit.

Does a Boat Need a Spotter When Pulling Someone on a Tube in Ontario?

Yes. Federal boating rules require a person on board, other than the operator, to watch every person being towed and communicate with the operator.

The rule is found in section 1005 of the Small Vessel Regulations. It applies when a vessel is towing someone on the water or in the air, including a rider on an inflatable tube.

The reason for the requirement of a separate observer is that the driver should be focused on driving the boat. That means looking ahead, watching other traffic, judging distances from docks and shorelines, responding to wakes and keeping the vessel under control. The observer watches the person on the tube and communicates with the driver if a rider falls, signals to stop or is in trouble.

The driver cannot safely do both at the same time by repeatedly looking backward while the boat is moving. In Woodbury, there was a spotter aboard, yet the evidence was that Robert was looking back toward the children shortly before he had to turn sharply to avoid the other boat. The tube then swung into the vessel he had failed to address in time.

That fact pattern demonstrates why a spotter is required. Apassenger sitting somewhere in the boat does not serve as a proper observer unless that person is watching the rider and communicating with the operator. After a serious tubing injury, two basic questions are critical: who was watching the rider, and who was watching the boat’s route?

If no separate observer was on board, that breach of the federal towing rule can be important evidence in the claim.

The Boat Must Have Space to Bring Riders Back Aboard

Section 1005 of the Small Vessel Regulations also requires the boat to have seating space available for every person being towed.

A boat can already have several passengers aboard and then pull one or more riders on a tube. If a rider is injured, frightened, exhausted or unable to continue, the boat still needs the capacity to bring that person back on board safely.

After serious tubing injuries, it is important to document the number of people on the boat, the number of people on the tube, the available seating and what happened after the rider entered the water. An overloaded outing can create danger both during the ride and after an injury.

Lifejackets, Visibility and Other Towing Rules

The observer and seating requirements are often central in a tubing injury claim, but they are not the only federal rules that apply when someone is being towed behind a boat.

The Small Vessel Regulations also address lifejackets and personal flotation devices. A person being towed must either be wearing an appropriately sized lifejacket or personal flotation device, or the towing vessel must carry the appropriate device that would be required if that person were on board.

The regulations also prohibit towing a person during restricted visibility or during the period beginning one hour after sunset and ending at sunrise.

Those rules can become important depending on how an accident happened. A PFD issue can be critical in a drowning or near-drowning case. Visibility can be central where a fallen rider or tow line was not seen in time. The absence of an observer can be particularly important where a rider fell and no one reacted promptly.

Tubing injury cases should focus on the rule connected to the accident rather than treating every boating rule as equally important in every case.

When a Driver Turns Tubing Into a Dangerous Ride

Many tubing rides involve turns, wakes and the occasional fall. A driver is obviously not negligent because a rider ended up in the water.

However, there's clear difference between a normal recreational ride and driving in a way that disregards the riders’ safety. A driver can cross that line by swinging the tube close to docks or moored boats, taking hard turns in a crowded area, crossing wakes at an unsafe speed, or continuing after someone asks to slow down or stop.

A rider on the tube cannot avoid a hazard. If the driver swings the tube toward an object, the rider cannot steer away from it. If the driver keeps accelerating or turning aggressively, the rider cannot take control of the boat.

The fact that a rider expected the tube to bounce or even expected to fall at some point does not decide a claim involving a violent ejection or an impact with an object. A person can agree to an ordinary tubing ride without agreeing to careless or reckless operation.

Evidence of how the boat was being driven often comes from the people who were there. Other passengers, nearby boaters and people watching from a dock or shoreline can describe the speed, route, turns and condition of the water. Video recorded during the ride can be especially important. A rider’s request to slow down or stop can also be significant where the driver ignored it and continued.

When a Tube Strikes Another Boat, Dock, Buoy or Shoreline

The driver is towing people behind the vessel. During a turn, those people can be carried well outside the boat’s path. The operator must leave enough room for the whole towing operation: the boat, tow rope, tube and riders.

That is an important lesson from Woodbury. Robert’s boat turned away from the stationary vessel. The tube did not. Nash was catastrophically injured because he was swung into a boat that should not have been within the tube’s path.

Similar questions arise where a rider strikes a dock, swim platform, buoy, rocky shoreline or moored vessel. The rider generally cannot steer the tube away from the hazard. The focus is on the driver’s speed, route, lookout and the amount of space left for the tube during the turn.

Important evidence includes the length of the tow rope, photographs of the shoreline or dock arrangement, the positions of the boats, witness accounts, any available video and records from police or a marine-unit investigation.

In the right case, the physical setting can answer much of the liability question: the driver was towing people in an area where there was not enough room to do so safely.

What if the Driver Was a Friend, Relative or Cottage Host?

Tubing injuries will often happen during family holidays, cottage weekends or summer outings with friends. The person driving the boat is frequently someone the injured rider knows well, however, that does not prevent a claim.

If the injury is significant, the practical issue is often whether there is insurance available to respond to the loss. A rider dealing with surgery, a brain injury, spinal trauma, time away from work or permanent impairment should not assume there are no options simply because the driver was a friend or family member.

The owner of the boat, the identity of the operator and any applicable insurance should be determined early. That is particularly important in a serious boating injury because federal maritime law can affect recovery.

Does the Marine Liability Act Apply to a Tubing Injury Claim?

A person injured while being towed behind a boat can have a claim governed by federal maritime law, including the Marine Liability Act.

The Act is especially important in catastrophic injury cases. In Woodbury, the court found negligence and reckless operation, assessed damages far above $1 million, and still applied the statutory liability limit that governed the claim at the time.

A tubing injury claim requires careful review of the applicable limit, the parties who can be held responsible, the available insurance and whether the facts support an argument that a defendant has lost the right to rely on limitation.

Our separate article explains how the Marine Liability Act affects boating accident claims in Ontario in greater detail.

Evidence to Preserve After a Serious Tubing Injury

Tubing accidents happen quickly, and the evidence can disappear just as quickly. The boat can be used again. The tube or tow rope can be thrown out or replaced. Videos can be deleted. Witnesses can leave the cottage, marina or lake before anyone records their names.

Where the injury is serious, photographs or video of the boat, tube, tow rope, PFDs and accident location should be preserved. The names of the operator, boat owner, observer and other witnesses should be recorded. Insurance information and any police, marine-unit or emergency records should be obtained.

The tow rope and tube can be especially important where there is an issue about their length, condition, warning labels or suitability for the way they were used. The boat itself can also require inspection where steering, throttle operation, maintenance or mechanical condition is disputed.

Speak With an Ontario Boating Accident Lawyer

A tubing injury is not always an unavoidable consequence of spending time on the water. It can result from a driver who failed to account for the swing of the tube, pulled riders too close to another boat or dock, ignored warnings or failed to follow the rules that apply when towing someone behind a vessel.

In catastrophic cases, the effect of the Marine Liability Act can be just as important as proving that the driver was at fault.

Foster Injury Law is an Ontario personal injury law firm which can represent seriously injured people and families across Ontario in boating accident claims. If you or a family member was seriously injured while tubing behind a boat, contact our Ontario boating accident lawyers for a free consultation. We act on a contingency fee basis, meaning you do not pay legal fees unless we successfully resolve your claim.

Written by Lane Foster, Personal Injury Lawyer

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue if I was injured while tubing behind a boat in Ontario?

Yes. A rider can have a claim where unsafe operation caused the injury. Examples include pulling the tube into another boat or dock, driving too aggressively for the area, ignoring a rider asking to stop, or towing without the observer required by federal boating rules.

Does a boat need a spotter when pulling someone on a tube in Ontario?

Yes. Section 1005 of the Small Vessel Regulations requires a person on board, other than the operator, to watch every person being towed and communicate with the operator. The boat must also have seating space for every person being towed.

Does the rider have to be wearing a lifejacket while tubing?

Federal rules require each person being towed either to be wearing an appropriately sized lifejacket or personal flotation device, or for the towing vessel to carry the appropriate device that would be required if that person were on board. Whether the rider had a PFD available or was wearing one can be especially important in a drowning or near-drowning claim.

Can a boat pull someone on a tube after sunset?

The federal towing rule prohibits towing during restricted visibility and during the period beginning one hour after sunset and ending at sunrise.

Can I make a claim if the driver was trying to throw me off the tube?

Potentially, yes. Tubing involves movement and ordinary falls, but a rider does not agree to reckless or unreasonably dangerous operation. A driver who swings riders toward hazards, ignores requests to stop or continues aggressive towing in unsafe conditions can be responsible for injuries caused by that conduct.

Why is Woodbury v. Woodbury important for tubing injury claims?

In Woodbury, a nine-year-old child suffered a catastrophic brain injury when the tube he was riding struck another boat. The Ontario Superior Court found that the operator’s negligence caused the injury and that his conduct was reckless. However, the court applied the $1 million Marine Liability Act limit in force at the time because the higher legal threshold required to defeat limitation was not established.

Does the Marine Liability Act apply to tubing injury claims?

It can. A serious injury suffered while being towed behind a boat can raise federal maritime-law issues, including the applicable liability limit and whether a defendant has lost the right to rely on that limit.