California Dive Boat Fire to Put Spotlight on Titanic's Legal Defense – gCaptain

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

...We live in a society that likes to place blame. There is a padded cell mentality that believes if anything goes wrong someone somewhere made a mistake and accidents do not exist.

Sadly, that is not the case.

Fire at sea has always been the greatest danger and is usually what terrifies sailors more than any other threat real or imagined. Modern technology has greatly increased our safety but there will always be risk....

There is a lot in this statement, including the assumption that we agree with the facts presented.

• There should have been a man on watch. They were not in a marina or harbor. A fire should have been noticed as incipient. I've done a lot of refinery time, and the night shift does rounds.
• If a persona makes a mistake, while working on the behalf of a company, without intentionally circumventing rules in a gross way, they are an agent of the company. Why would a deck hand take on that kind of liability for peanuts?
• Fires don't just"happen." There was a cause. Whether it involved liability is a separate question.
• If the fire can spread that quickly, then egress needs to be first fate. It was not. Should this have been obvious to the owners? Perhaps.

Really, this exclusion is for "act of god" type incidents. A huricane, in the days before prediction was possible. A tsunami.



But we will see what the courts say.


I'm not a "sue-everybody" kind of guy. I believe in reasonable settlements. However, the company failed to deliver a safe trip and the victims, some with small children, I would bet, have costs and damages. The company has some duty to make this right.

[Pelagic]

I started this thread to review the legal implications of this Admiralty Law to see if it had any implications that might be of interest to small boat owners in case of a loss at sea
It was not to point fingers or make any moral judgements about this Law.....
...just trying to understand it better

[S/V Adeline]

Thinwater,
Snip:
"I'm not a "sue-everybody" kind of guy. I believe in reasonable settlements. However, the company failed to deliver a safe trip and the victims, some with small children, I would bet, have costs and damages. The company has some duty to make this right."

We do not yet know if the company failed any of the legal obligations required. The investigation should answer that question.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Really, this exclusion is for "act of god" type incidents. A huricane, in the days before prediction was possible. A tsunami.
'

I didn't read it that way.....
It seems to be more about protecting the ship owner from events or shipboard practices that they were unaware of

Was the Captain of the Titanic's decision to head at full speed thru an iceberg zone for bragging rights on their inaugural voyage....an act of God?......don't think so yet the Company apparently successfully used that Law to limit their liability.

I agree, it doesn't seem fair to those who suffered , but I think Judges today have a different take on how to apply it compared to the Titanic era .

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I'm not a "sue-everybody" kind of guy. I believe in reasonable settlements. However, the company failed to deliver a safe trip and the victims, some with small children, I would bet, have costs and damages. The company has some duty to make this right.

If a 50' wide meteor had struck the boat, would they have failed their duty to provide a "safe trip"?

The duty to make it right only applies if they in some way failed in their original duty. Some incidents are out of the owners control or would require efforts beyond what is "reasonable" (ie: would it be "reasonable" to expect that the owner make the boat meteor proof or add a meteor detection system?)

[transmitterdan]

It was reported that there was a watch kept 24/7 but the person(s) on watch might have been asleep when the fire broke out. The fire alarms were of the battery operated home type and not networked to raise a boat wide alarm. That was what a CG person told some reporters. And the boat passed a CG certification so apparently the smoke alarms were “adequate”.

The original poster’s question as to whether there is a valid use of the liability limitation law for personal craft incidents it is a valid topic. Apparently the US Supreme Court held that even a PWC qualifies as a “vessel” so there is every reason to think a cruising yacht is also a “vessel” under the limitation of liability law. Even a dredge with no means of propulsion on the high seas is a “vessel”. So this old law seems to have a lot of applicability today. If the judge grants the owner’s petition to limit liability to zero there will be much hue and cry in the press you can be sure. And calls for Congress to “do something”.

[Captain Bill]

When standing anchor watch on a research vessel many years ago we spent most of our time in the wheel house and did a deck walk once an hour where we glanced at the engine room, the galley, and the crew quarters which took about 5 minutes. This was the SOP. It's pretty obvious when you think about it that a fire could have as much as 55 minutes to get going before it was noticed from the wheel house. If the crew was following a similar procedure there is no need to speculate that the crew might have been asleep. Since the wheel house was forward and at anchor the boat faces into the wind, early indications of fire such as the smell of smoke might not be evident in the wheel house. Our vessel didn't even have home type fire alarms. Having set off smoke alarms in the kitchen of my house, I seriously doubt that someone in the upstairs bedrooms would hear it. They just are not that loud. It's quite possible that the alarms were not audible from the wheel house, and that an alarm going off in the galley might not wake exhausted divers below sleeping behind a curtain. If one assumes that the vessel met all applicable safety regulations, I think we can be pretty sure that we'll see some of the current ones revised and new ones added.



I personally have given some thoughts to the design of my boat as a result of this tragedy. It's quite clear to me that despite 100% compliance with regulations that egress alternatives in my aft state rooms are totally inadequate. The only way out is through a single exit. Though I have smoke alarms and CO alarms, and two fire extinguishers in each cabin that is simply not good enough. I will now try to figure out how to put in hatches of adequate size to allow a person to get out, instead of the small ventilation hatches currently installed.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The original poster’s question as to whether there is a valid use of the liability limitation law for personal craft incidents it is a valid topic.

Which has barely been mentioned.


Relevant extracts:

30504:
The owner of a vessel is not liable for loss or damage to merchandise on the vessel caused by a fire on the vessel unless the fire resulted from the design or neglect of the owner.


30505 (Limitation of Liability for property on board)

Unless otherwise excluded by law, claims, debts, and liabilities subject to limitation under subsection (a) are those arising from any embezzlement, loss, or destruction of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board the vessel, any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of the owner.

30506 (Limitation of Liability for personal injury and death)
(a)Application.— This section applies only to seagoing vessels, but does not apply to pleasure yachts, tugs, towboats, towing vessels, tank vessels,fishing vessels, fish tender vessels, canal boats, scows, car floats, barges, lighters, or nondescript vessels.

[Pelagic]

Thanks again Stu but where does it exclude yachts?
Nondescript????

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If a 50' wide meteor had struck the boat, would they have failed their duty to provide a "safe trip"?

The duty to make it right only applies if they in some way failed in their original duty. Some incidents are out of the owners control or would require efforts beyond what is "reasonable" (ie: would it be "reasonable" to expect that the owner make the boat meteor proof or add a meteor detection system?)

If the meteor strike was predicted in the area then yes, they have failed their duty. When one undertakes commercial activity for profit (irrespective of whether or not actual profit was made or loss was suffered) one owes a substantially higher duty of care to one's customers. This is the basic reason for different rules covering a day sail among friends and a paid day charter.

Even assuming the fault for starting the fire lies with one of the passengers (cell phone or camera battery fire, etc) the fact that the vessel as designed and used prevented ANY of the 34 passengers from escaping speaks volumes as to the vessel owners potential fault and subsequent liability for failure to provide a vessel adequately designed for the purpose - overnight diving trips.

A fire onboard, as many have prevously mentioned, is always a distinct possibility. Thus the vessel's design and evacuation plans and routes must reflect that statistical fact. Perhaps there can be no adequate fire protection without a tenfold increase in the cost of such trips due to tenfold increase in costs of fire prevention designs, procedures and methods. So be it. Why should society in general and not the parties involved be paying for someone else's recreation decisions? Because if the ship owners' insurance won't pay those widows and children guess who will in the long run - us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur

[S/V Adeline]

We do not know yet if the vessel design prevented those in the sleeping quarters to escape. From what I have read, based on a sister ship said to be almost identical in design, there was another hatch way allowing exit.
We dont know why (if it was on this vessel) it wasn't used.
There is always the very real possibility that toxic fumes from combustion caused the victims to perish without ever waking up. Given the right environment this can happen even before flames erupt (many electrical fires smolder, sometimes very long periods)

Assuming it was electrical fire, which seems most probable.
Autopsies should answer some of this.

The point is there are inherent risks in life.

If the owners met all safety requirements they should not be treated as criminals.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

If the meteor strike was predicted in the area then yes, they have failed their duty. When one undertakes commercial activity for profit (irrespective of whether or not actual profit was made or loss was suffered) one owes a substantially higher duty of care to one's customers. This is the basic reason for different rules covering a day sail among friends and a paid day charter.

Even assuming the fault for starting the fire lies with one of the passengers (cell phone or camera battery fire, etc) the fact that the vessel as designed and used prevented ANY of the 34 passengers from escaping speaks volumes as to the vessel owners potential fault and subsequent liability for failure to provide a vessel adequately designed for the purpose - overnight diving trips.

A fire onboard, as many have prevously mentioned, is always a distinct possibility. Thus the vessel's design and evacuation plans and routes must reflect that statistical fact. Perhaps there can be no adequate fire protection without a tenfold increase in the cost of such trips due to tenfold increase in costs of fire prevention designs, procedures and methods. So be it. Why should society in general and not the parties involved be paying for someone else's recreation decisions? Because if the ship owners' insurance won't pay those widows and children guess who will in the long run - us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur

So a meteor is predicted somewhere in southern california...what is the reasonable response?

You are jumping to conclusions that the design prevented escape. As someone else mentioned, toxic fumes could have killed them in their sleep, so they never tried to escape...if it passed coast guard inspection as a passenger boat, that's a fairly strong indication that the owner made a reasonable effort to make it safe.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So a meteor is predicted somewhere in southern california...what is the reasonable response?

You are jumping to conclusions that the design prevented escape. As someone else mentioned, toxic fumes could have killed them in their sleep, so they never tried to escape...if it passed coast guard inspection as a passenger boat, that's a fairly strong indication that the owner made a reasonable effort to make it safe.

I will grant you that it could have been the fumes. And? How does that absolve the operator? Then the design was inadequate as far as fire protection is concerned, etc.

Change the situation a bit. Say it was not a dive boat but a 34 person parachute jump. The jump operation owner did not personally packed the parachutes but his employees did. In fact the operation owner used the same approved parachutes and packers for the past 30 years without a single failure. But on that particular day 34 parachutes did not not open and all the jumpers perished. What say you? Still "too early to speculate, let's wait for the investigation"? Or the event will speak for itself?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

The point is there are inherent risks in life.

If the owners met all safety requirements they should not be treated as criminals.

Exactly, plus as someone else mentioned, normally for sport diving excursions, the customers sign a Waiver.
So was curious on how the courts now view waivers in a sporting activity
Found this:
https://www.sadlersports.com/riskman...verrelease.php

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I will grant you that it could have been the fumes. And? How does that absolve the operator? Then the design was inadequate as far as fire protection is concerned, etc.

Change the situation a bit. Say it was not a dive boat but a 34 person parachute jump. The jump operation owner did not personally packed the parachutes but his employees did. In fact the operation owner used the same approved parachutes and packers for the past 30 years without a single failure. But on that particular day 34 parachutes did not not open and all the jumpers perished. What say you? Still "too early to speculate, let's wait for the investigation"? Or the event will speak for itself?

Yes!!! Wait for the investigation before making the owner out to be a villain!!!!

30yrs without a failure, follows all industry standards, experienced employees...sure sounds like the owner did everything reasonably possible and in his control. So unless an INVESTIGATION suggests the owner did something else to cause it, there is no reason to convict the owner.

Really, if that was the case, I would be looking at something more like employee sabotage. The idea that on one jump 34 chutes would fail after 30yrs without a failure just makes no sense from a systemic problem the owner should have been aware of ahead of the jump.