Oh dear 
Crew member sues Conception
- Thread starter Dizzi Lizzi
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Sorry Doc, not me. I read the complaint and can see where it is going. I understand the "name everyone" philosophy of tort law but the Wookster seems to have a for more refined knowledge base on the Jones Act and maritime injury law. I will defer to his expertise in that arena.
My legal expertise is limited to farm bankruptcy and lender liability in Oklahoma.
Enjoy the weather out there. Wish I was drinking a beer on Catalina Island or snacking on a Churro on Huntington Beach at this very moment. Instead, I'm going to service a grain drill to hopefully start planting barley for winter grazing this weekend.... weather permitting. 127 grease zerks surrounded by sharp rusty metal poky cutty slicy things you have to twist yourself into pretzel to get to. Fun fun...
Hug a 3700 pound sea bass for me!!
Jay
yes, aware, that said I would be surprised if Conceptions steward and/or cook held mariners certificates. The Conceptions COI only required 1 master, 1 mate and 2 deck hands, as as you just pointed out, professional mariners holding such certification aren't cheap. So, just someone hired as steward without mariner certifications would "not know what they don't know" regarding any of the stuff in the lawsuit.
https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/...5f54/conception-certificate-of-inspection.pdf
They would of course be "mariners" for the Jones act, but not professional certificated mariners for manning requirements.
Wouldn't you folks agree that this particular disaster/tragedy will be setting new grounds in the dive boat charter/liveaboard business in terms of liability, insurance coverage and rules, requirements for safety and many other aspects of the business? The accident is probably the first of its type ever in North America and hence it will set new grounds in many aspects of running a dive boat for hire.
- Messages
- 5,141
- Reaction score
- 4,136
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
@Jayfarmlaw
Those sea bass have changed…
They will poise for pictures ...
Only if they are given a big hunk of corn bread !
Not California corn bread - Not Texas corn bread , but good ole '
Oklahoma Corn bread !
Diving in the park has changed since your last dive..
Sam
Those sea bass have changed…
They will poise for pictures ...
Only if they are given a big hunk of corn bread !
Not California corn bread - Not Texas corn bread , but good ole '
Oklahoma Corn bread !
Diving in the park has changed since your last dive..
Sam
nolatom
Contributor
My admiralty work is more in collisions and dock-crashings, typically on behalf of an oceangoing ship calling in or near the Mississippi River. So take this with a grain of salt (or fresh) water. That said,,
Maintenance and Cure is due from a commercial vessel owner to a crewmember, regardless of whether licensed or documented as such, to provide medical care if injured in service to the ship, and in some cases, lodging in a strange port. And typically that obligation, and compensation, is not affected even if the owner can limit liablilty to the value of the ship post-accident under the Limitation Act.
I won't guess why the steward decided to sue, or sue now, but disagreements over what amount of care and maintenance are due, are not uncommon. And if there's psychological/ emotional harm claimed, that too is part of the "Cure", and may last much longer than the physical injury part.
May I also make the usual disclaimer? This isn't meant to be legal advice, I'm not your attorney, go consult your own. We have to say that.
Maintenance and Cure is due from a commercial vessel owner to a crewmember, regardless of whether licensed or documented as such, to provide medical care if injured in service to the ship, and in some cases, lodging in a strange port. And typically that obligation, and compensation, is not affected even if the owner can limit liablilty to the value of the ship post-accident under the Limitation Act.
I won't guess why the steward decided to sue, or sue now, but disagreements over what amount of care and maintenance are due, are not uncommon. And if there's psychological/ emotional harm claimed, that too is part of the "Cure", and may last much longer than the physical injury part.
May I also make the usual disclaimer? This isn't meant to be legal advice, I'm not your attorney, go consult your own. We have to say that.
The government, or whoever the government contracts to administrate those benefits could (and likely should) sue to recover the costs. No reason why the people should foot the bill for someone else's negligence.
So question for the experts on Coast Guard regulations. Per https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/185.410
§ 185.410 Watchmen.
The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997]
Is it as cut and dry as this regulation appears to me as a layman?
§ 185.410 Watchmen.
The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997]
Is it as cut and dry as this regulation appears to me as a layman?
It is that cut and dry, more so when they add even alongside to your certificate of inspection as they did with Conception
So next question. As a worker on a boat, what is the responsibility of such a person if they observe regulations not being observed?
I would hazard a guess is that the plaintiff knows these regulations to some degree. While I would not anticipate this would diminish the negligence claims by the families against the owners (as that is where the buck stops, though I am wondering about the captain - the person who is supposed to go down with the ship), given that the plaintiff knows the regulations but continued to go about his business with regulations being ignored doesn't give him a leg to stand on.
Similar threads
