Dive boat accident involving Dive tech and Cathy Church boat

[Wookie]

Yeah, I think it is an interesting question trying to decide which law would really be applicable. I assume there is a "wreckless operation of a watercraft" type of law that is likely to be the most applicable, and as said above, it probably has a few hundred dollar fine attached. But if the person who was supposed to be driving as incapacitated in some way, can that law still apply if the wrecklessness was not "willful"? Without reading through the Cayman statutes, I really don't know, but I have seen crazy stuff that "can't be prosecuted" in the states because of the way laws are written too strictly sometimes.

The civil chain of liability is abundantly clear in this case, regardless of what the root cause was, but whether there is a criminal offense that can be prosecuted is less clear based on the limited facts we have about the accident.

She was in violation of rule 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 18.

 

[Tug]

She was in violation of rule 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 18.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf

RULE 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

RULE 6
Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can
take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

RULE 7
Risk of Collision
(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

RULE 8
Action to Avoid Collision
(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

RULE 13
Overtaking
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.


RULE 18
Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

 

[AggieDiver]

Those are USCG rules. Are the Caymanian authorities able to charge somebody criminally under USCG navigation rules? That is not a smartass question...I honestly don't know what laws Cayman uses to enforce that kind of thing. I would have assumed they had their own code of some sort.

 

[Tug]

INTRODUCTION
International Rules
The International Rules in this book were formalized in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and became effective on July 15, 1977. The Rules (commonly called 72 COLREGS) are part of the Convention, and vessels flying the flags of states ratifying the treaty are bound to the Rules. The United States has ratified this treaty and all United States flag vessels must adhere to these Rules where applicable. President Gerald R. Ford proclaimed 72 COLREGS and the Congress adopted them as the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977.
The 72 COLREGS were developed by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) which in May 1982 was renamed the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In November 1981, IMO’s Assembly adopted 55 amendments to the 72 COLREGS which became effective on June 1, 1983. The IMO also adopted 9 more amendments which became effective on November 19, 1989. The International Rules in this book contain these amendments.

 

[AggieDiver]

Yes, I understand that Cayman is part of the IMO and those rules will govern how it is determined who was in the wrong in a civil proceeding. But the post that kicked off all of this was one that presumed that Cayman "kangaroo courts" and protection of the well-connected was what was standing in the way of criminal charges being filed against the operator of the boat. Is there a means by which the navigation rules and the civil penalties included get codified into Cayman law such that the local authorities have the authority to bring charges? Or is it left to the insurance companies to hash that out between themselves?

 

[Tienuts]

Don't assume that I condone anything. I just said that there were reasons why it might be more complicated than it seems. What you said is totally correct. The captain is always in charge and responsible. The easy answer is to stop the boat. However, when the captain is brand new on the job and in their early 20s and has the owner of the boat there with them, the lines get blurred in practice, if not in theory. If the owner of the boat tells them to do something and they don't, do they lose their job? The easy answer for you and me sitting here at a desk is "doesn't matter, stop the boat". But 20 year old me with my boss telling me to do something might not have been so certain about the answer.

Except the alleged offender in question is not a 20 year old kid. It's the owner, who has been navigating boats for 30 years in Cayman waters, and who also holds a USCG captain's license.

Yup. From a legal perspective, did a crime occur? Is there sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction? If so, what should be the charge?

I'm no lawyer but it seems very clear 2 violations of the Cayman penal code occurred:

210. Reckless and negligent acts

A person who in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or safety -
(b) navigates or takes part in the navigation or working of any vessel,
hovercraft or aircraft;
does any act with respect to, or omits to take proper precautions against any probable danger from any machinery of which he is solely or partly in charge
commits an offence.

267. Destroying or damaging property

A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, commits an offence and is liable, where the value of the destruction or damage -
exceeds three thousand dollars, to a fine of ten thousand dollars and to imprisonment for ten years.

 

[Wookie]

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf

RULE 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

RULE 6
Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can
take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

RULE 7
Risk of Collision
(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

RULE 8
Action to Avoid Collision
(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

RULE 13
Overtaking
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.


RULE 18
Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

I guess not 13...

 

[AggieDiver]

Except the alleged offender in question is not a 20 year old kid. It's the owner, who has been navigating boats for 30 years in Cayman waters, and who also holds a USCG captain's license.



I'm no lawyer but it seems very clear 2 violations of the Cayman penal code occurred:

210. Reckless and negligent acts

A person who in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or safety -
(b) navigates or takes part in the navigation or working of any vessel,
hovercraft or aircraft;
does any act with respect to, or omits to take proper precautions against any probable danger from any machinery of which he is solely or partly in charge
commits an offence.

267. Destroying or damaging property

A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, commits an offence and is liable, where the value of the destruction or damage -
exceeds three thousand dollars, to a fine of ten thousand dollars and to imprisonment for ten years.

Thanks for posting that...to you, Tug, and Wookie. It is very informative to those of us who aren’t captains to understand where the rules and regs come from.

Have there been new details released about who was driving (or not driving)? I thought the initial stories indicated that it was a new young captain driving, with Cathy on the boat with them. All I ever saw was a statement somewhere from Cathy saying something to the effect of “it was complicated” as to why nobody was at the helm. Has there ever been an explanation offered for why nobody was at the wheel? Under certain circumstances, I could see where that “without lawful excuse” clause could open a lot of room unless it is narrowly defined elsewhere in the statutes.

Again, nothing I am posting should be interpreted as trying to rationalize what Cathy or her employees might have done. I just think it is unfair to the authorities to automatically assume that things are so cut and dried, that the only explanation for a delay in charges has to mean corruption is involved.

 

[scubafanatic]

She was in violation of rule 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 18.

...but otherwise OK ?

 

[Wookie]

...but otherwise OK ?

Fine as frog hair.