Maritime Injury Attorney Blog

In my opinion the disaster involving the Costa Concordia, involving the loss of lives, not only requires us to focus in on safety issues aboard the mega cruise ships, but also emphasizes the needs for changes in the favorable laws cruise ship companies enjoy.

All of the cruise ship companies register in foreign countries, and register their ships in foreign countries. The flags of these vessels are referred to as flags of convenience because the cruise ship companies register these vessels in foreign countries in order to enjoy favorable laws, including avoiding United States taxes.

What are the many favorable laws that the cruise ship companies enjoy? First, let's focus in on claims involving passengers onboard cruise ships.

The first thing a passenger must be concerned with is the passenger ticket issued by the cruise line. It is referred to as a contract of passage. However, it is not really a contract, although it is considered legally to be one. It is merely a number of provisions which disclaim and limit the liability of the cruise ship company. It grants no rights to the passengers. It takes rights away.

In the passenger ticket, the cruise ship company sets forth the deadline to file a lawsuit against them arising out of personal injury or death. The deadline is one year from the date of the incident. This is an extremely short statute of limitations. Most statute of limitations involving personal injury and wrongful death claims are 2 to 4 years. The cruise ship company enjoys the benefit of being able to limit the time a passenger can file a lawsuit against them to a very short one year period of time. In addition, the cruise ship company requires written notice to be provided of such a claim within 6 months.

Continue reading "Costa Concordia Disaster Shows the Needs to Change Favorable Laws Cruise Ships Companies Enjoy " »

A lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court alleges that Celebrity Cruises passengers went on a cruise without knowledge that the cruise line had been experiencing problems with the ship's propulsion system. Apparently, the problems were ongoing and the passengers were not told the problems could affect their cruise. The lawsuit also alleges had the passengers been fully informed, they would have cancelled their voyage.

The cruise ship involved is the Celebrity ship called the Summit, which was a 13-day cruise along the West Coast and to Alaska. The ship carries approximately 2000 passengers.

The lawsuit alleges there were several prior problems of breakdowns which resulted in cancellations and interruptions in other cruises. The lawsuit also alleges the ship had to be sent to dry dock for emergency/unscheduled repairs on several other occasions.

The issues will be whether the cruise line breached their maritime duties to the passengers by sailing with these ongoing problems and at the same time advertising that the cruise was a "premium" cruise. The passenger's expectations were that they were sailing on a ship that did not have any issues at all with any of its mechanical systems. To the contrary, the expectations are that everything was working properly and that the cruise would be a totally enjoyable and memorable, as the cruise lines advertise.

Since passenger claims against the cruise lines are governed by the maritime law and passenger contracts, the cruise line has asserted affirmative defenses to the lawsuit which include provisions contained in the passenger ticket. As our firm has reported, the cruise lines often times will escape liability by affirmative defenses such as the claims are barred by the time limitations contained in the ticket or waiver of liability found in the passenger tickets. An experienced maritime lawyer will immediately refer to the ticket when considering any potential claims against a cruise ship company.

Continue reading "Lawsuit against celebrity cruises for failure to warn about mechanical problems seeks class action status" »

An oil platform exploded at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 2010, approximately 200 miles west of where the BP Oil explosion occurred. There were 13 crewmembers aboard the oil platform, who all were tossed into the water, and were floating there until the rescuers arrived. One of those crewmembers was rushed to a hospital. The Coast Guard would not confirm whether any oil had actually leaked into the water. Although such a fire aboard an oil platform might be considered something that happens somewhat frequently, and not receive a lot of attention in the past, the BP Oil spill has caused this recent explosion to receive national attention. This explosion again raises the issue which environmental groups are arguing, which is that the current federal moratorium on deep water offshore drilling is necessary. This particular platform was not drilling and was not in deep water.

A letter from House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep., Henry A. Waxman, who is part of the investigation of the BP Oil spill, wrote the following in the Los Angeles Times "in the wake of the BP catastrophe, this is an extremely disturbing event," and "I call on the administration to immediately redouble safety reviews of all offshore drilling and platform operations in the Gulf and take all appropriate action to ensure safety and protection of the environment."

Another article in Politico states that Reps. Bart Stupak and Ed Markey "are leading the investigation in two subcommittees" of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The story states that "the explosion will almost certainly bolster Democrats' contention that off-shore drilling is not yet safe enough," and Republicans have "said offshore drilling should not be halted, but safety measures should be improved. This incident will likely give both sides more ammo going into an election season where Democrats are furiously trying to paint Republicans as friends with Big Oil."

Finally, the Wall Street Journal reported that this recent explosion may hamper the oil industry's efforts to portray the BP Oil spill as a fluke event.

The dangers of working on an offshore patrolling platform have become even more apparent in the wake of the BP Oil spill disaster which resulted in serious injuries and deaths.

Continue reading "Another Oil Rig Explosion Occurs 80 Miles Off the Louisiana Coast" »

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, published on August 11, 2010, attorney Gibson Vance, who is current President of the American Association for Justice, writes that the current Maritime Laws hamper oil spill settlements. He emphasizes that not only must Congress lift the Seventy-Five Million Dollar cap that is currently present in the Oil Pollution Act, which will severely limit BP's responsibility for the economic damages suffered on the Gulf Coast, but he also urges Congress to amend the Death on the High Seas Act and the Limitation of Liability Act. Otherwise, he says, the residents of the Gulf Coast, as well as small businesses there, will end up footing the bill for BP's disaster.

As stated in his letter to the editor, DOSHA severely limits recovery for families of anyone killed on the high seas when DOSHA is applicable, including the families of the eleven men who died in the Deep Water Horizon rig explosion. DOSHA limits the families' recovery to economic loss only, which normally translates to the costs of the funeral, as well as proven loss of financial support and services the family member would have been provided.

The Limitation of Liability Act, which is an outdated law from 1851, is an act that the company Trans Ocean is trying to use to limit their liability to the value of the Deep Water Horizon after the incident, which has been calculated at under Twenty-Seven Million Dollars.

Our maritime and wrongful death firm has handled many cases involving the Limitation of Liability Act, which requires cases to be pursued in Federal Court without a jury trial. Not only does the act deprive litigants from their right to a jury trial in many cases, but the fund that is available for recovery if the ship owner is successful at limitation is often times inadequate to adequately compensate the victims.

The Deep Water Horizon disaster is a perfect example of the inequities involved when the Limitation of Liability Act is applicable. The same applies to the Death on the High Seas Act limitations.

Hopefully when Congress does return from its recess, it will address these antiquated Maritime Laws not only to assure that the victims of the BP Oil spill are adequately compensated, and that BP Oil is held fully accountable, but by amending these laws all Maritime lawsuits in the future will not be subject to these antiquated and unfair Maritime Laws.