Tragedy on the Water:

Florida’s beautiful waterways offer unparalleled recreation, but recent events, like the devastating boat crash involving the Clearwater Ferry on April 27, 2025, are stark reminders of the potential dangers and severe legal consequences when things go wrong. When a boating accident involves a fatality and the operator flees the scene, the situation becomes critically serious, potentially involving charges like Vessel Homicide and Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Death.

Notably media reports a BAC result of .00 in this case and that the operator remained on scene after the crash for some time. The full response by the defense team is below.

Compare the boat crash in Clearwater (April 27, 2025) with the one involving Dr. William La Torre in 1989.

Here’s a comparison of the two incidents:

1. Clearwater Ferry Crash (Sunday, April 27, 2025)

• Location: Near the Clearwater Memorial Causeway bridge, Clearwater, Florida.
• Incident: A boat struck the Clearwater Ferry, which was carrying 45 people (including 2 crew members). The striking boat was located by authorities. Some media reports that the vessel initially remained on scene.
• Vessels Involved: The Clearwater Ferry and another boat.
• Casualties: One person who was aboard the ferry died from their injuries. At least 12 others were transported to hospitals, including several considered trauma patients who required airlifting. All individuals from both vessels were accounted for.
• Aftermath: A mass casualty incident was declared, involving numerous ambulances and helicopters. The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is leading the investigation into the cause.

2. Dr. William La Torre Boat Crash (Sunday, May 28, 1989)

• Location: Near Indian Rocks Beach, Florida (also in the Tampa Bay area).
• Incident: Dr. La Torre was operating a 38-foot Cigarette speedboat when it collided with, or ran over, a smaller 17-foot ski/powerboat. Dr. La Torre’s son, Todd (then 16 and later the singer for Queensrÿche), his wife, and two friends were passengers on his boat.
• Vessels Involved: A 38-foot Cigarette speedboat and a 17-foot ski/powerboat.
• Casualties: Four teenagers aboard the smaller boat were killed. No one on Dr. La Torre’s boat was injured.
• Aftermath: Dr. La Torre was identified as the operator. Blood-alcohol tests were performed, though immediate results weren’t available. He was subsequently charged with four counts of vessel homicide but was acquitted in court in 1990. The incident led to significant legal fees for Dr. La Torre, contributing to his bankruptcy in 1992. Friends and legal representatives noted the accident had a lasting traumatic effect on him until his death in 2014.

Boat Crash Comparison Summary:

Feature	Clearwater Ferry Crash (Apr 2025)	Dr. La Torre Crash (May 1989)
Date	April 27, 2025	May 28, 1989
Location	Clearwater, FL (Near Memorial Causeway)	Near Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Incident Type	Collision involving a passenger ferry	Collision between large speedboat and smaller powerboat
Fatalities	1 (from the ferry)	4 (from the smaller boat)
Injuries	12+ (from the ferry)	0 reported from Dr. La Torre’s boat
Vessels	Ferry & another boat	Cigarette speedboat & ski/powerboat
Accountability	Striking boat located; investigation ongoing	Operator identified, charged, but acquitted of vessel homicide

Navigating the aftermath of such an incident requires immediate, experienced legal counsel. At DUI2Go.com, attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands the complexities of Florida’s boating laws and is prepared to defend your rights.

Florida Laws Governing Serious Boating Accidents

Several Florida Statutes come into play in fatal boating accidents, especially those involving impairment or leaving the scene:

1. Boating Under the Influence (BUI): Similar to DUI on the road, operating a vessel while impaired by alcohol or drugs, or with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher, is illegal under Florida Statute § 327.35 (found within Florida Statutes Title XXIV, Chapter 327 on Justia). BUI significantly increases the risk of accidents and carries serious penalties on its own.
2. Vessel Homicide: Defined under Florida Statute § 782.072 (found within Florida Statutes Title XLVI, Chapter 782 on Justia), this occurs when the reckless operation of a vessel causes the death of another person. This was tragically illustrated decades ago in the 1989 Tampa Bay area crash involving Dr. William La Torre, which resulted in the death of four teenagers and led to vessel homicide charges (though he was ultimately acquitted, the case highlights the legal severity).
3. Duty to Stop and Render Aid: Florida Statute § 327.30 (found within Florida Statutes Title XXIV, Chapter 327 on Justia) mandates that any boat operator involved in a crash resulting in injury, death, or property damage must stop, provide their information, and render reasonable assistance to anyone injured (including transporting them for medical treatment if necessary). They must also report the accident to law enforcement immediately.

How Reckless Operation of a Vessel Impacts a Prosecutor’s Charging Decision

When a boating accident occurs, “reckless operation” of a vessel is a critical legal threshold that heavily influences whether prosecutors pursue misdemeanor, felony, or even homicide charges.

In Florida, if a prosecutor can prove that the boat operator acted with “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property,” the incident moves beyond a mere accident to something far more serious — criminal recklessness.

Here’s how it impacts charging decisions:

Level of Operation	Typical Charge	Key Impact on Prosecutor’s Decision
Negligent Operation (simple carelessness)	Misdemeanor (e.g., careless boating)	Lesser penalties; often citations or fines
Reckless Operation (willful disregard for safety)	Felony (e.g., Vessel Homicide if death occurs)	Justifies serious felony charges, longer prison terms
Reckless Operation + Impairment (BUI involved)	Felony (e.g., BUI Manslaughter)	Enhances charges, allows for aggravated penalties

Key Factors Prosecutors Analyze:

• Speeding in restricted areas
• Ignoring navigation rules (right of way violations)
• Operating while intoxicated (BUI)
• Failure to keep proper lookout
• Operating a vessel aggressively or dangerously
• Prior boating violations or history of unsafe operation

If the reckless conduct causes death, prosecutors often file Vessel Homicide charges under Florida Statutes § 782.072.

👉 Bottom Line:
Proving reckless operation transforms a case from a tragic accident into a criminal case where the defendant faces serious felony charges, years of prison time, and lifelong consequences.

The Crime of Leaving the Scene

Fleeing the scene of a boating accident where injury or death occurred is a serious felony offense under Florida law (referencing § 327.30 in Chapter 327 linked above).

• Leaving the scene of an accident involving injury is typically a third-degree felony.
• Leaving the scene of an accident involving death is a second-degree felony.

Crucially, if the accident involved a death and the operator failed to give information or render aid (i.e., left the scene), a charge like BUI Manslaughter can be elevated from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony.

Severe Penalties You Could Face

Convictions for these offenses carry life-altering consequences:

• BUI: Penalties increase with prior offenses and BAC levels, including potential jail time, significant fines, vessel impoundment, probation, and mandatory education/treatment.
• Vessel Homicide (Reckless): Often charged as a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and substantial fines.
• BUI Manslaughter: Killing someone while operating a vessel under the influence. This is typically a second-degree felony (up to 15 years prison, $10,000 fine).
• BUI Manslaughter + Leaving the Scene: As mentioned, failing to stop and render aid after a fatal BUI crash can elevate the charge to a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 30 years in prison and significant fines.

(For detailed penalty information, refer directly to the Florida Statutes or consult with legal counsel).

FAQ: Vessel Homicide, Reckless Boating, and Leaving the Scene in Florida

---

Why You Need an Experienced Defense Attorney Immediately

Cases involving vessel homicide, BUI, and leaving the scene are incredibly complex and aggressively prosecuted. The state will utilize extensive resources, including accident reconstruction teams and forensic analysis. As seen in the recent Clearwater incident where the striking boat allegedly fled, the immediate aftermath is chaotic, and establishing facts requires meticulous investigation.

You need a defense attorney who understands boating laws, accident investigation, and felony trial procedure. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor with decades of experience defending clients facing the most serious charges in the Tampa Bay area.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a serious boating accident, do not talk to investigators without legal representation. Protect your rights.

Contact Casey Ebsary at DUI2Go.com today for a confidential consultation.

Visit https://www.dui2go.com or call now.

Source Materials:

It is the duty of the operator of a vessel involved in a collision, accident, or other casualty, so far as he or she can do so without serious danger to the operator’s own vessel, crew, and passengers, if any, to render to other persons affected by the collision, accident, or other casualty such assistance as is practicable and necessary in order to save them from or minimize any danger caused by the collision, accident, or other casualty, and also to give his or her name, address, and identification of his or her vessel in writing to any person injured and to the owner of any property damaged in the collision, accident, or other casualty. The operator of a vessel involved in an accident with an unattended vessel shall take all reasonable steps to locate and notify the owner or person in charge of such vessel of the accident, furnishing to such owner his or her name, address, and registration number and reporting as required under this section.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xxiv/chapter-327/section-327-30

Letter from Defense Attorney to Investigators

Re: Clearwater Ferry Incident – Representation of Mr. Jeffrey Knight – Request for Preservation of Evidence

Dear Investigator Schefano:

I represent Mr. Jeff Knight, the operator of the private vessel involved in the Clearwater ferry collision on April 27, 2025. I appreciate your efforts in leading this important and complex investigation.

This letter serves two primary purposes. First, to provide factual context regarding Mr. Knight’s actions at the scene. Second, to request the preservation of critical evidence.

Mr. Knight’s Actions Were Consistent with Florida Law

Immediately following the collision, Mr. Knight fully complied with his legal obligations under Florida Statute § 327.30, which outlines the duties of a vessel operator following an accident. As you are aware, § 327.30(1) provides that the operator of a vessel involved in an accident resulting in injury, death, or property damage must render assistance, insofar as it can be done without serious danger to the operator’s own vessel, crew, and passengers. Subsection (2) further requires the operator to remain at the scene until these obligations are met, again so far as safety permits.

Immediately after the accident, Mr. Knight directed a passenger on his vessel to call 911, and that passenger remained on the line with the 911 operator for nearly twelve minutes. During this time, the caller relayed updates and emergency directions, such as telling Mr. Knight to instruct all the ferry passengers to immediately put on a life jacket. Mr. Knight tied his vessel to the ferry in order to stabilize it and render aid. He used his boat to maneuver the ferry closer to shore so that first responders would have easier access to the passengers. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, he told the captain of the ferry boat that he was able to transport injured individuals by water to Morton Plant Hospital, believing this would provide faster care than waiting for land-based emergency services. This offer was declined.

Shortly thereafter, while Mr. Knight was still on scene and assisting, he noticed that his boat had taken on a large amount of water and all of his bilge pumps were activated. At that point, he became concerned that his boat might sink and he decided that as soon as he was able, he needed to get his boat back to his dock where he could safely lift it out of the water. Only after Clearwater Police Officers were in the water and ambulances had arrived did Mr. Knight leave in order to prevent his boat from sinking with an infant on board.

At every point, he acted lawfully and responsibly, exercising sound judgment under high-stress conditions. I am attaching a video corroborating the above, and you can clearly see that Mr. Knight was still on scene after the police arrived and the EMS vehicles had arrived.

Independent Witnesses Corroborate Mr. Knight’s Conduct

Importantly, neutral third-party witnesses independently corroborate Mr. Knight’s actions. Andrew Triglio, the First Mate of the pirate ship, gave a televised interview in which he noted that Mr. Knight’s vessel lingered at the scene and rendered aid. Notably, Mr. Triglio stated that he did not initially realize the vessel helping was the one involved in the collision, which underscores that Mr. Knight’s conduct did not raise suspicion or alarm at the time.

Additionally, the captain of the nearby “pirate ship” publicly affirmed that Mr. Knight was instrumental in providing assistance and remained on scene until appropriate emergency support had arrived. These unbiased accounts clearly refute any allegation that Mr. Knight attempted to flee or avoid his obligations.

Allegations of “Leaving the Scene” Are Without Legal or Factual Basis

The available evidence, including eyewitness testimony, 911 call records, and video footage, demonstrates conclusively that Mr. Knight rendered immediate and appropriate assistance, coordinated with emergency responders, and departed only after rescue operations were well underway. This conduct is exactly what Florida Statutes §§ 327.30(1) and (2) require.

Accordingly, any suggestion that Mr. Knight unlawfully left the scene is wholly unsupported.

Mr. Knight Voluntarily Submitted to Testing, Showing No Signs of Impairment

Even though investigators observed no signs of impairment, Mr. Knight voluntarily submitted to a breath-alcohol test at the scene, which registered 0.000. It is crucial to emphasize that no signs of alcohol or drug impairment were noted by law enforcement.

I respectfully request the preservation of all evidence relating to impairment evaluations, including, but not limited to, the raw breath test data and calibration logs, field sobriety test notes, any body-worn or dash-camera footage of evaluations, and chain-of-custody documentation.

If another agency conducted or retains these materials, please advise so I may issue a preservation request accordingly.

Formal Request for Preservation of Additional Evidence

 Furthermore, lighting experts who have reviewed video of the incident believe that the widely circulated footage was artificially brightened at the time of recording by nighttime enhancement filters, which may give a misleading impression of visibility. We respectfully request access to unedited, raw footage in order to accurately assess lighting conditions at the time of the incident.

Ongoing Cooperation

I am continuing to collect evidence, including additional video footage and expert reports. I will provide any supplemental materials to your office as they become available.

If your office requires access to passengers who were aboard Mr. Knight’s vessel or to third-party technical experts reviewing the video evidence, please let me know and I will coordinate.

Conclusion

The uncontested facts show that Mr. Knight acted in full compliance with Florida law, rendered meaningful assistance to the ferry and its passengers, was sober and cooperative throughout, and departed the scene only after rescue efforts were underway. These actions are supported by neutral eyewitnesses.

Allegations to the contrary are not grounded in fact or law and appear to be driven by misinformation.

Given the seriousness of this matter and the misinformation already circulating publicly, I respectfully request your prompt attention to the concerns and evidence outlined above. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you need additional materials or clarification.

Sincerely,

J. Kevin Hayslett