Bounty sinking official report!

[Mark1977]

Very sad, I think we all new what the official report would say.

[BandB]

Lawsuit really isn't much of an issue as there's no one with money to sue. The non profit that only had the boat as an asset? The dead Captain?

The report is brutal because the truth is. Reckless captain. Quite honestly, criminally guilty of "reckless endangerment". Crew following when mutiny might have been in their better interest. Never risk lives for boats. Then the other thing is if you get into trouble, admit it and get rescued as soon as possible. I can't grasp the refusal to notify the Coast Guard and to launch the liferafts. We've had other recent incidents and those people are alive who decided to call for help before their lives we in severe danger.

I think anyone associated with the entire situation should recognize their role in such an ill fated venture. But ultimately the licensing of a captain requires them to take the primary role and this one failed miserably.

Now this may also bring to rise one more issue. That is licensing requirements for private vessels not used to commercially carry passengers. This vessel sailed in that way. Didn't require it to be inspected (as earlier indication was it wouldn't pass for carrying passengers) and didn't require licensing and full crew. Many countries have added some requirements on pleasure craft and I wouldn't be surprised to see the US do it at some point.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

My observation has nothing to do with blame but simply a legal limitation that if advised, each individual crew member was given the option to not sail into a named storm.

Any competent lawyer would get around that in about ten seconds, but there would be a deduction in damages, probably 10 to 20%, but no more. The defense of "Volenti non fit injuria" would only be a partial defense when you consider the captains Talk with the crew that will be shown to be a "pep" talk like a football coach does before the game or at half time: "things are really bad and if you want to drop out I wont criticise you, but we are a team and we can come back from this 100 point to zero deficit and win. We can WIN!" Giving kids half an hour to pack and pay their own travel, to be called a chicken when they greet the boat with a laughing crew? How could they recover from the ridicule if they were given their job back. Thats coercion by the swaggering older captain who gets interviewed by TV stations... He's almost famous. What a break for a lawn mower mechanic to get a job with him!

As for who they would sue its the owner... and being a non profit or whatever has nothing to do with damages at law. The owner was insured, he will have been paid out his $4 m and the insurance company is up for a whole lot more, imho.


Mark

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by BandB

Lawsuit really isn't much of an issue as there's no one with money to sue. The non profit that only had the boat as an asset? The dead Captain?

The report is brutal because the truth is. Reckless captain. Quite honestly, criminally guilty of "reckless endangerment". Crew following when mutiny might have been in their better interest. Never risk lives for boats. Then the other thing is if you get into trouble, admit it and get rescued as soon as possible. I can't grasp the refusal to notify the Coast Guard and to launch the liferafts. We've had other recent incidents and those people are alive who decided to call for help before their lives we in severe danger.

I think anyone associated with the entire situation should recognize their role in such an ill fated venture. But ultimately the licensing of a captain requires them to take the primary role and this one failed miserably.

Now this may also bring to rise one more issue. That is licensing requirements for private vessels not used to commercially carry passengers. This vessel sailed in that way. Didn't require it to be inspected (as earlier indication was it wouldn't pass for carrying passengers) and didn't require licensing and full crew. Many countries have added some requirements on pleasure craft and I wouldn't be surprised to see the US do it at some point.

as well it shouldn't have had any more restrictions that it already has.

much of our commercial fleet is strangled with regulations that don't prevent incompetency....new factory rigs sink because of something stupid...more regs aren't the answer.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Any competent lawyer would get around that in about ten seconds, but there would be a deduction in damages, probably 10 to 20%, but no more. The defense of "Volenti non fit injuria" is only partial and when you consider the captains Talk with the crew that will be shown to be a "pep" talk like a football coach does before the game or at half time: "things are really bad and if you want to drop out I wont criticise you, but we are a team and we can come back from this 100 point to zero deficit and win. We can WIN!"

As for who they would sue its the owner... and being a non profit or whatever has nothing to do with damages at law. The owner was insured, he will have been paid out his $4 m and the insurance company is up for a whole lot more, imho.


Mark

I seriously doubt there was any insurance on the boat itself other than liability. So, yes, there may be some benefit in suing based on whatever amount of liability insurance was in place. Now when suing an insurer like that the case is likely to go years and years and the cost of suing will really mount up.

[Andrew Troup]

Things were a lot simpler in the days where the Captain's word was law.

It wouldn't have done anything to prevent this tragedy, but it would surely make it simple to allocate responsibility now.

Now there's legal precedent for the USCG to pull rank on the captain of a US vessel, and order them to abandon. What next?

The way things are heading in the US, everyone is responsible, which is functionally indistinguishable from nobody being responsible.

And the rule of law, it seems to me, is increasingly subsumed by the rule of lawyers.

Crappy outcomes like this will always be on the cards, but if we continue behaving as though "we" can prevent them, and should have done so, I'm thinking we are more likely to make the overall future picture worse rather than better.

And it seems to me this is particularly so at sea, where we are so far from having converged on 'single best practice' in almost every respect of operation

There are a great many different philosophical bases for voyaging, which can each be perfectly valid.

But forcing people to conform to aspects of an incompatible philosophy is, I think, just asking for trouble.

[mrohr]

No surprise with findings.....Look up video of captains interview before departure available on you tube.........mostly bravado and B.S.........
It's one thing to B.S. the press and others, quite another to believe your own1

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by BandB

I seriously doubt there was any insurance on the boat itself other than liability. So, yes, there may be some benefit in suing based on whatever amount of liability insurance was in place. Now when suing an insurer like that the case is likely to go years and years and the cost of suing will really mount up.

Lol you need a quick lesson in law. The insurance company isnt sued. The company that owned the boat, the estate of the captain, maybe the dockyard, maybe the Coast Guard, all could be joined in a suit. But not an insurance company, even though the damages would be paid out, in actuality, by the insurance company. And costs would be factored in so it doesnt matter how high they go.

I dont know why you doubt they had insurance. A prudent owner would never let a ship for sale for $4 million head into a storm without insurance. Plus it would need full insurance to be a dockside attraction not just liability.

By the way, the reason why i would join the USCG into the case is there is legislation in the US saying the coast guard can force a ship not to leave port, turn a ship around, and to force it to abandon. A good lawyer will cover all bases so he makes sure he gets the fullest amount of money for his clients.

[Southern Star]

Andrew, I understand your point, but we cannot disregard the fact that some tragedies can be prevented and it is imperative that investigations be conducted in order to ascertain the facts and to make findings and recommendations in order to prevent (or at least reduce the risk of) similar tragedies in the future. Do you also believe that airplane crashes should not be investigated?

Fortunately, the Captain's word has not been 'law' for a very long time; indeed, for more than a century investigations have been conducted into the loss of vessels at sea (and in the case of naval vessels, for many centuries) and the captain was at risk of losing his license, or more. Does this report suggest that there is a 'single best practice'? No. However, does anyone believe that it would be a 'best', or even acceptable practice to go to sea with an inexperienced crew, well below the standard compliment for the ship, into the path of a hurricane in any vessel, let alone one with rot and significant leaks even in benign conditions? Does anyone believe that it was a best practice prior to any sea voyage in such a ship, not to eunsure that all bilge pumps were operational and that the crew were familiar with operating the same?

Brad

PS Ontherocks, the Alpha 42 did not head out into the path of a hurricane with an insufficent number of inexperienced crew, patent defects including rot and questionable caulking, known leaks and a non-functioning bilge pump. Rather, the original weather forecast on their departure was good and any defects were latent, rather than patent. Furthermore, unlike the captain of the Bounty, the decision to abandon ship was not deferred until it was too late to safely enter the water in order to effect a rescue. It is nowhere near the same situation and any such suggestion, IMO, is virtually slanderous to the captain of the Alpha 42.

[SaltyMonkey]

They had insurance. There was a scandalous question at the time whether he went out to sea to skuttle and collect insurance. Saw it searching' yesterday. Looking for it. Of course, i don't believe it.

[Seasiq]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

A prudent owner would never let a ship for sale for $4 million head into a storm without insurance.

One could easily say that a prudent owner would never have let it sail in the condition that it was in, at all.

One could even say that a prudent owner would never have that that guy captain the boat, at all.

[S/V_Surya]

I always ponder what would I have done. Go home, or sail with a trusted experienced skipper. Common sense says do not go on the trip, but the captain says it is safe. I think I would have gone on the trip. Scary to think about.....

[goboatingnow]

It is a testimony to modern seamanship, training and the application of procedures that despite a huge increase in sea traffic, the industry is far safer then 18th or 19th century when the so-called captains decision was law ( actually it hast been for 200 years )

Andrew is a well know " nostalgic" On CF . But the facts speak for themselves. Seafaring was once an extremely dangerous occupation and the loss of life per voyage was a virtual given.

I for see the bounty tragedy as a failing from 19th century not the 21st ( and a lesson repeatedly being thrown at the tall ship " industry " )

Dave

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It is a testimony to modern seamanship, training and the application of procedures that despite a huge increase in sea traffic, the industry is far safer then 18th or 19th century when the so-called captains decision was law ( actually it hast been for 200 years )

Andrew is a well know " nostalgic" On CF . But the facts speak for themselves. Seafaring was once an extremely dangerous occupation and the loss of life per voyage was a virtual given.

I for see the bounty tragedy as a failing from 19th century not the 21st ( and a lesson repeatedly being thrown at the tall ship " industry " )

Dave

Largely thanks to the mis-conception by man that 'Bigger is Stronger and Better'... someone needs to let the wind and waves know that.. maybe they'll realise they're cocking up a whole 'Belief System'.. and change their waves...

[sailorboy1]

I'm not really interested in who sues who because that is just a sad issue in itself. Reading the whole report it is clear to me that the capitan was a fault more than once and it even appears that had he not changed course to the west the boat would have made it.

But one part of the report is probably key for the who is anyone can be sued:

"The US Coast Guard certificated the Bounty as a “moored attraction vessel.” As such,
when the vessel was secured alongside a berth, visitors could tour it for a fee, but the vessel was not permitted to carry passengers under way. .................... When the Bounty transited between event sites with just the crew on board, the vessel was considered simply a recreational/private vessel, subject to very few requirements of the Coast Guard’s regulations found in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 175 and 183."