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

[Pelagic]

https://gcaptain.com/california-dive...legal-defense/

Because this is a high profile case, it will be an interesting review of marine responsibilities

[JPA Cate]

It is very sad so many people died.

Does there have to be a target for blame? What if the inferno was so bad, no one could go help anyone? Try and imagine this!

The crew escaped in an inflatable lifeboat????? Give us all a break. The lawyers can confound this terribly, when people are needing to come to grips with what has happened to their loved ones. It was a dinghy, not a lifeboat. They tried to get help!

Please do not turn this into a media frenzy. It is so totally NOT what people need right now.

Ann

[transmitterdan]

Well, I think the dive boat company has reason to be worried about liability. They must also think that since they have just sued the victims families in an attempt to limit the boat owners liability. Imagine losing a loved one in the most gruesome way possible and then to be sued a few days later. I would say the media storm is only gong to get worse.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/conceptio...escue-attempts

[Miniyot]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Well, I think the dive boat company has reason to be worried about liability. They must also think that since they have just sued the victims families in an attempt to limit the boat owners liability.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/conceptio...escue-attempts

Where does that article say they sued the victims families?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Please do not turn this into a media frenzy. It is so totally NOT what people need right now.
Ann

Hi Ann,
Unfortunately, the media will do what the media does thru ignorant embellishments to garner publicity

My intent on this thread is to highlight the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, which is considered out of date by many

The law allows the owner of a vessel to petition a federal court to exonerate it from damages, or limit damages to the post-accident value of the ship, which in this case is a total loss.

The law is routinely invoked for an accident on a waterway, whether it involves tugboats and barges in busy harbors or leisure boats at vacation hot spots.

The famous case :
*The 1912 sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage, in which more than 1,500 people were killed, is a classic example of the law being successfully employed.
The ship’s owner, White Star Lines, was able to limit its liability in lawsuits in the United States to $92,000, which was the value of the lifeboats that survived the accident.

It basically put the liability onto the Captain and Crew as the owners argue that they do not make the operational decisions, the captain does

Today there are far more Owner enforced rules, regulations and remote management, so many feel that this law needs to be challenged.

Since Truth Aquatics filed a petition in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, this may become a test case.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Well,
......they have just sued the victims families in an attempt to limit the boat owners liability.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/conceptio...escue-attempts

They are not suing the families!

[Pelagic]

One immediate take I have on this tragedy is the safety management of charging power packs for dive lights and camera equipment.

Has there been any theories suggesting this may have been the cause of the fire?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

They are not suing the families!

Ah but they are. The suit is filed in Federal Court and it names all potential plaintiffs which are the families or estates of the victims. As has already been pointed out this situation stems from a very old law in the US.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

One immediate take I have on this tragedy is the safety management of charging power packs for dive lights and camera equipment.

Has there been any theories suggesting this may have been the cause of the fire?

Not that I have heard. Investigators at last report had not determined a cause or location. By the time crew realized they had a fire it was really too late. Makes me wonder about efficacy of smoke and fire alarms. Hard to imagine there was no earlier warning.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/prelimina...iencies-report

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Ah but they are. The suit is filed in Federal Court and it names all potential plaintiffs which are the families or estates of the victims. As has already been pointed out this situation stems from a very old law in the US.

I think you need to look up the meaning of "sue". They are not seeking any form of redress from the families of the victims. They are seeking protection against being sued themselves.

[lancelot9898]

The owner may not be suing the families directly, but any action that prevents the families from collecting damages does in fact amount to an attack on the families IMHO.

[tkeithlu]

There may be a media frenzy, but we don't have to contribute to it. We do need, I think, to confront the flammability of fiberglass resin. If past fires are an indicator, the toxic smoke and heat from an electrical fire that gets to the fiberglass is sudden and overwhelming, such that the crew topside likely had no chance of getting below for fire fighting or rescue.

[S/V Adeline]

Filing a petition that claims the vessel was seaworthy, properly maintained, had the required safety gear, and properly trained crew is NOT 'suing' the family members. Thank the media for that misdirection to increase drama.

There is no legitimate reason to change this law or any owner's right to invoke it. Hopefully evidence will show if the law applies in this case. Expect alot of media drama, no doubt.

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.

The petition is nothing more than the owner's claim that all reasonable and required safety measures were employed, this was an accident not due to negligence or noncompliance with any requirement or protocol, and that they too suffered a total loss (the ship).

If the investigation proves otherwise, the petition will be denied.

[lancelot9898]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

If the investigation proves otherwise, the petition will be denied.

This would imply that the investigation must be completed BEFORE the petition can be approved or denied. Is that right? Or can the petition be approved prior to the investigation and if the investigation finds fault then the petition can be revoked??

[S/V Adeline]

If I am reading it correctly, in the Missouri duck boat accident the judge has yet to rule on the petition and some settlements have been made. The judge isn't likely to rule on such a petition unless very convincing evidence supports it.

Since the petition claims the owner did his due diligence in maintaining the vessel, one would assume the petition could not be granted until after the investigation supports the claim.