Local News

Previous Pigeon Point case raises questions after jet ski tragedy

12 April 2026
This content originally appeared on Trinidad Guardian.
Promote your business with NAN

Se­nior Re­porter

[email protected]

The last time there was a se­ri­ous mar­itime ac­ci­dent in­volv­ing mi­nors at Pi­geon Point Her­itage Park, the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly (THA) was re­quired to pay sig­nif­i­cant com­pen­sa­tion for fail­ing to warn vis­i­tors of the dan­gers posed by boats and wa­ter­craft.

On June 12, 2007, Yanik Vin­cent Ques­nel and his then girl­friend, Ana Car­oli­na Bar­ry-La­so—both 17 at the time—were se­ri­ous­ly in­jured af­ter be­ing struck by a pirogue’s pro­peller while swim­ming at the pop­u­lar tourist at­trac­tion.

Ques­nel, a res­i­dent of Cas­cade, was left paral­ysed and wheel­chair-bound.

Bar­ry-La­so, a Span­ish na­tion­al whom he had met in Cos­ta Ri­ca, where they were both study­ing, was left par­tial­ly paral­ysed. She lat­er re­gained mo­bil­i­ty but was left with a per­ma­nent limp.

Through their at­tor­neys, Se­nior Coun­sel Dou­glas Mendes and Ker­wyn Gar­cia, the pair filed a neg­li­gence law­suit—not against the boat op­er­a­tor—but against the THA, the park, and the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.

In Oc­to­ber 2010, then-High Court judge Ju­dith Jones up­held the claim, find­ing the THA and the park li­able for fail­ing to take ad­e­quate steps to en­sure the vis­i­tors’ safe­ty and pre­vent the ac­ci­dent. She dis­missed the as­pect of the claim seek­ing to hold the State li­able.

Jus­tice Jones did not im­me­di­ate­ly as­sess dam­ages, as the com­pen­sa­tion sought was large­ly based on the mil­lions of dol­lars spent by the fam­i­lies on med­ical treat­ment.

The THA and the park filed an ap­peal, but it was with­drawn be­fore de­ter­mi­na­tion. The mat­ter was even­tu­al­ly set­tled dur­ing the tenure of for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC.

In her rul­ing, Jus­tice Jones ex­am­ined which le­gal en­ti­ty bore re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for the fa­cil­i­ty af­ter it was pur­chased in 2005 from busi­ness­man Dr An­tho­ny Sab­ga, founder of the ANSA McAL con­glom­er­ate, which al­so owns this news­pa­per.

She found that while the land was held by the State, and the wa­ters bor­der­ing the fa­cil­i­ty typ­i­cal­ly fell un­der its con­trol, re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for both had been vest­ed in the THA and the park un­der leg­is­la­tion es­tab­lish­ing the As­sem­bly.

“In­so­far as the li­a­bil­i­ty of the THA is con­cerned, its li­a­bil­i­ty aris­es as a re­sult of its oc­cu­pa­tion of the park, as well as its con­trol over the ad­ja­cent wa­ters,” she stat­ed.

Jus­tice Jones re­ject­ed claims that Ques­nel and Bar­ry-La­so were re­spon­si­ble for the ac­ci­dent by vol­un­tar­i­ly swim­ming in a chan­nel that runs par­al­lel to the beach and is fre­quent­ly used by boats and oth­er wa­ter­craft.

She not­ed that it was Bar­ry-La­so’s first vis­it to Trinidad and To­ba­go and to the fa­cil­i­ty, while it was on­ly Ques­nel’s sec­ond vis­it, his pre­vi­ous one hav­ing been when he was be­tween ten and 11 years old.

“I find as a fact that the use of the chan­nel by boats in the ad­ja­cent wa­ters pre­sent­ed an un­usu­al dan­ger to sea bathers—one not with­in the rea­son­able ex­pec­ta­tion of vis­i­tors to To­ba­go, and in par­tic­u­lar the claimants,” she said.

“Nor does the fact that the claimants may have seen boats, whether moored or mov­ing, sug­gest that they ac­cept­ed the risk of in­jury,” she added.

Rul­ing that the THA and the park had breached their du­ty of care, Jus­tice Jones found that li­a­bil­i­ty could have been avoid­ed had ad­e­quate warn­ing signs been erect­ed.

“It is clear from the ev­i­dence that not on­ly did they have con­trol over the park, but al­so ex­er­cised suf­fi­cient con­trol over the beach area—giv­en the pres­ence of con­ces­sion­aires, life­guards, bath­room fa­cil­i­ties and beach chairs—to al­low for the erec­tion of warn­ing signs,” she said.

She al­so found that the swim­ming area could have been de­mar­cat­ed from the boat chan­nel, as had been done by the fa­cil­i­ty’s pre­vi­ous own­er pri­or to the sale.

“In my opin­ion, the pres­ence of ropes and buoys would not on­ly hin­der the use of the chan­nel by boats, but would al­so pro­vide a warn­ing to op­er­a­tors and de­mar­cate a safe area for bathing,” she said.

“There is no is­sue as to the rea­son­able­ness of the cost of im­ple­ment­ing these mea­sures. In my view, the cost is neg­li­gi­ble,” she added, not­ing that such mea­sures were im­ple­ment­ed by the THA af­ter the ac­ci­dent.

Jus­tice Jones fur­ther found that the fail­ure to warn or re­strict boat traf­fic in the ad­ja­cent wa­ters caused or ma­te­ri­al­ly con­tributed to the in­juries.

“It would seem to me that had there been signs warn­ing of the risk posed by boats in that area, the claimants would have heed­ed them,” she said, adding that there was no ev­i­dence the spe­cif­ic area held any par­tic­u­lar at­trac­tion for the pair.

Guardian Me­dia was un­able to con­tact the in­di­vid­u­als for com­ment on the re­cent death of sev­en-year-old An­gel­i­ca Jo­gie, who was struck by a jet ski while swim­ming with rel­a­tives at the fa­cil­i­ty on Wednes­day.

Ac­cord­ing to pub­licly avail­able in­for­ma­tion, Ques­nel is now a neu­ro­sci­en­tist, trad­er and cryp­to da­ta an­a­lyst, while Bar­ry-La­so is an at­tor­ney based in the Unit­ed King­dom.