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

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I've had a couple of chargers completely burn up, unattended. Melted the plastic, smoke, no open flame though. They had been charging, unmolested, and when I walked into the room - I smelled burning plastic. Still active heat, and I quickly unplugged them as soon as I noticed. If I hadn't of caught it, I'm not sure what might have happened really. It did send a message to me.

I suspect this will be the main target of investigation and to a lesser extent the batteries themselves (sitting out of chargers.) The chargers and the loads put on the electrical system may be more the culprits, but just my suspicion.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Actually, probably the majority of vehicle trips are dispensable (going out to the movies for example, or commuting solo rather than using transit or ride sharing)...so should they be held to a different standard where no accidents are allowable no matter what the cost as opposed to a trucker delivering to a grocery store can have lots of crashes because it's critical to feeding the population?

Your logic gets real messy when you try to apply it.

Also, I'm sure for the owner and the crew, it's not dispensable. Kind of hard to buy those groceries if they are run out of business. Where do you draw the line?

There is no such thing as a ZERO risk activity, so starting from the assumption that no risk is acceptable is a fools errand.

Nanny state is one extreme. Total free for all is the other. One way not to fall into either extreme is to have INFORMED consent of all the parties involved including third parties such as insurance companies, etc. Perhaps if some of the passengers were duly aware that their life insurance policy will not cover a death on a boat without x, y and z safety precautions they would not have consented to be on that boat.

The consent often sought or demanded by fiat on the back of your ticket stub most likely is not an informed one. And thus should not have any validity in any related litigation. But if everyone knows where they stand before commiting to this or that option then of course it should be up to the informed adults how to spend their leisure time.

[GordMay]

Valiant sailboats and Uniflite powerboats were built, for a time in the late 1970s, with a polyester resin that had a fire retardant additive. The additive caused the boats to blister badly.
Uniflite dropped the fire retardant additive in the early 80s, and due, in part at least, to the blistering problems, Uniflite was sold. The new owner was not interested in sailboats and sold the Valiant name, molds inventory, and so on to Rich Worstell, who moved
the manufacturing operation to Texas in the mid-1980s.

According to: https://uniflite.com/history/
The issue regarding the fire-retardant resins causing blisters in later years (1975+) was a result of a change in suppliers of the fire retardant resin (Hetron). Earlier models (prior to 1975) contained a fire retardant called “Hetron” manufactured by Dupont Chemical and these boats did not have any blistering problems. When Dupont ceased production of Hetron 1975, a different fire retardant was used from a different manufacturer. Unfortunately, the new fire retardant contained a solid form of the chemical bromine which, unfortunately, evolved into a gas when the fiberglass was warmed sufficiently. This happened to Uniflites in warmer climates like Florida and California more then it did in the Pacific Northwest. This bromine gas created an acid that ate its way out of the gel coat. For this reason, if you were to grind out a deep blister you would notice a “gooey” material. The only way to remove a blister properly is to grind it out, let it dry, then fill the hole with a vinylester resin ($$). It doesn’t solve the problem entirely but should provide a strong barrier (plug) to prevent the blister from reaching the surface again. In reality, the blisters will likely return.