Maritime Injury Attorney Blog

We all read about the horrific conditions passengers were subjected to when the cruise ship named Triumph caught fire. The ship was days at sea without power, and sewage flowing all over the ship. For some reason it took several days to get the ship back to port, and all the passengers had to endure days of horrible conditions.

Carnival at first made a small offer to everyone, nothing close to what should be paid to compensate the passengers for what they were needlessly subjected to.

Following the disaster, and Carnival's insulting offer, it was first reported Carnival didn't want to reimburse the government for the expenses incurred in coming to the rescue, and towing the ship back to safety. Faced with adverse publicity, Carnival did an about face and agreed to reimburse the government for the expenses.

Now, faced with lawsuits arising out of the incident, and there being clear liability on the part of Carnival, Carnival is seeking to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing passengers agreed to no class actions and to arbitration. Of course, passengers do not really agree to any such thing. These are simply provisions put in a take it or leave it passenger ticket, which is considered a contract of passage containing binding terms and conditions, one of which is a prohibition against bringing a class action, and one of which is the passenger must submit certain claims to binding arbitration.

We have constantly urged these provisions are unfair, and slanted in favor of the cruise ship companies. These provisions are not bargained for. The provisions are designed to shield cruise ship companies like Carnival from liability.

Cruise ship companies enjoy way too many privileges and benefits under maritime law, many of which have been gained through lobbying Congress and getting favorable laws enacted.

With the recent trend of serious incidents involving cruise ships, we all have been alerted to the need for stricter laws governing cruise ship companies. Hopefully, Congress will act out of concern for the safety of our citizens, and not continue to act out of concern for their big financial donors, the cruise ship industry. Millions are spent by the cruise ship companies each year lobbying Congress for protection of the already existing favorable laws, and to seek passage of even more favorable laws designed to take away people's rights.

Our firm will continue to be leaders in the fight against the cruise ship industry and assist those who are harmed at sea due to a cruise ship accident.

Carnival Corp. said "the company has made the decision to voluntarily provide reimbursement to the federal government," following harsh criticism over its use of federal resources for costs related to the high-profile fires aboard the Carnival Triumph in February and Carnival Splendor in 2010. The exact amount of payment is still being determined, though a U.S. senator has said the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy had estimated costs of about $4.2 million for the two incidents combined. In both cases, fire knocked out power to the ships, which were slowly towed to land. The U.S. Coast Guard escorted the Triumph and Splendor; the U.S. Navy delivered tons of food and supplies to the Splendor.

In letters released earlier, it sounded as if Carnival Corp. was refusing to reimburse federal agencies if they sought remuneration. Carnival explained that at no point did they refuse to make a payment and added that no agency had asked them for money. A newspaper article states Carnival has said they will in fact pay the expenses incurred by the United States, including the Navy costs and Coast Guard costs.

Had they refused to pay, U.S. federal taxpayers would have had to foot nearly $780,000 for costs associated with the rescue of the crippled Carnival Triumph cruise ship. Carnival Corp. in the released letters had stated that its policy is to "honor maritime tradition that holds that the duty to render assistance at sea to those in need is a universal obligation of the entire maritime community," a duty that would not include reimbursing the U.S. government for Coast Guard costs.

The letters were in reply to an inquiry by U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, about the Triumph stranding and the cruise line's overall safety record. In his letter Rockefeller, adding that Carnival appears to pay little or no federal income taxes and that "these costs must ultimately be borne by federal taxpayers."

Rockefeller called the response "shameful" and said that he is considering "all options to hold the industry to higher passenger safety standards" which could include a congressional hearing and legislation, perhaps even a closer look at taxation.

In its defense, the cruise line noted that its ships frequently participate in rescues at the Coast Guard's request, including 11 times in the past year in Florida and Caribbean waters. It also mentioned port taxes and fees and other payments and said it paid $16.5 billion in wages to U.S. workers in 2011.

"Every state where our ships call or home port benefits from the dollars spent by cruise lines to buy products and retain services from local businesses," Carnival added.
Carnival has had about 90 incidents aboard its ships that were filed with the Coast Guard in the past five years. Carnival responded that 83 were not considered serious under federal regulations. Three were the Triumph and Splendor mishaps and the capsizing of the Costa Concordia off Italy's coast, which killed 32 people in January 2012. The others were more minor ship collisions, an illness and one passenger who jumped off a ship.

The cruise line said it takes each incident "very seriously" and undergoes reviews and corrective measures when needed, such as a review of safety and emergency response practices across all of Carnival's brands following the Concordia accident. In a separate letter, Carnival Chairman and CEO Micky Arison said the company takes the issues raised by Rockefeller very seriously and "remain committed to the safety and comfort of our guests and we are proud of our ability to provide millions of people with safe, fun and memorable vacation experiences."

But what corrective measures are in place for those guests and cruise ship workers who aren't provided with a safe and fun experience?

It is good of Carnival to step up to address this issue, even if it is only in response to the criticisms. It would be great to see them, as the world's largest cruise ship company, take the lead in the industry toward higher passenger safety standards. The cost of preventing these problems would be priceless in comparison to the very expensive cures they face.

Our firm continues to act as safety advocates for those harmed at sea.

It is still early in 2013 and Carnival Cruise Line seems to be plagued with cruise ship issues.

Just a few weeks ago, the Carnival Triumph had a fire in the ship's engine room and left the ship drifting, without power, water or flushing toilets for five days. And already in March, the cruise line has two new shipboard emergencies.

The Carnival Dream's emergency fuel generator broke, and like the Carnival Triumph, saw the guests without use of elevators and toilets. Luckily, the conditions for the guests on the Dream didn't last long as the cruise line removed guests from the ship and flew them back to Orlando immediately.

And as the Carnival Dream sits in St. Maarten's, the Carnival Legend is moving slowly off the coast of Honduras with its own problems. Ports are being cancelled and the ship is heading back to its home port.

As Carnival deals with these issues, it can still boast that it is the largest cruise ship company and in the first quarter of this year has earned $37M. How much of this money is being put towards things that can improve safety and living conditions on the ship for guests and crew? Not much it would seem.

Carnival has offered the usual discounts and reimbursements to guests but what are they offering the crew? Nothing it would seem.

The dream vacation that many take when they cruise is becoming more of a nightmare. The industry needs to pay closer attention to safety at sea and if cruise lines such as Carnival continue to endanger lives, then maybe they should be impacted where it hurts them the most--in earnings. They should be charged, and often, until they realize that cutting corners where safety is concerned is a dangerous practice that cost lives.

Our Miami Maritime law firm continues to act as safety advocates for crewmembers and passengers.

Ever since the tragic incident involving the Costa Concordia, there has been a lot of talk about where any lawsuits would have to be decided. Many lawyers not familiar with maritime law were unaware that in passenger cases, the passenger ticket must be consulted immediately since it contains many time constrains and other limitations, including limiting the place where the lawsuit can be filed. In the case of the Costa Concordia, the ship is operated by the Costa Cruise Line Company out of Italy. The passenger tickets for the Costa Concordia provides for an Italian forum with the applicability of Italian law. This is because the Costa Concordia did not start or end its cruise in a United States port. Otherwise, United States law would govern, and the lawsuit would have to be filed in Broward County Florida, according to the ticket.

Several cases were filed here in Miami, Florida, which have been met with defense motions to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, and improper venue selection due to the passenger ticket requiring suit to be filed in Italy. One of those cases, Scimone v. Carnival Corporation at el, was filed in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. Since Carnival was added as a Defendant, and there are other Defendants other than Costa, the Plaintiff's chose to try to file suit in Miami, Florida. They too were met with a motion to dismiss, but in this particular case the Defendants took a chance and removed the case to the Federal District Court here in the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiffs moved to remand the case claiming that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction.

The Federal District judge entered an order granting the motion to remand the case to the State Court. The reason the case was remanded to the State Court is important. Some have believed that the mere fact the Federal judge remanded the case to the State Court was a determination by the Federal judge that Miami is in fact an acceptable forum to hear these cases. However, the Federal judge did not reach that ruling. The Federal judge did not address the Defendants motion to dismiss the case based on form non-conveniens, or the argument that the forum selection clause in the Costa ticket requires suit to be brought in Italy. Instead, the Federal District Court limited its decision to remand the case to a jurisdictional basis. The Defendants had removed the case from the State Court to the Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. This statutory law allows for the removal of "mass actions", which is a civil action "in which monetary relief claims of a 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the Plaintiffs' claims all have the common questions of law or fact." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(11)(B)(i)

As for the Class Action Fairness Act being a basis for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction, the Federal Judge ruled that the lawsuit did not have 100 separate different Plaintiffs. In addition, the Plaintiffs did not propose to have all the cases tried jointly. Therefore, this statue did not apply and did not provide a valid basis to remove the case to the Federal Court.

An interesting point about the decision that the CAFA did not provide a basis for removal is that the court had to determine whether the Plaintiffs had engaged in "artful pleading" to deliberately avoid Federal jurisdiction, and if so, whether that was a basis to apply the CAFA in this particular case. The court noted a diversion of opinion among the District Courts on whether artful pleading can avoid the CAFA Federal jurisdiction. This particular judge agreed with the courts that concluded Plaintiffs may skirt the removal under the CAFA and mass actions by artful pleading. Thus, removal was not appropriate under the CAFA.

Continue reading "Federal Judge Grants Motion to Remand to Costa Concordia Plaintiffs" »

In recent years, ship owners have increasingly been able to avoid their responsibilities and obligations under the United States laws that are designed to protect seaman, namely the Jones Act enacted by Congress in 1920, and the General Maritime Law which give seaman rights to maintenance and cure as well as claims for unseaworthiness of the vessel. Unseaworthiness is a form of liability without fault. The maritime laws have consistently been interpreted to protect seamen, who historically have been considered the wards of the United States Admiralty Courts.

Ship owners, including cruise ship companies, have fought hard, and spent lots of money, trying to escape their responsibilities under the favorable laws to protect seaman. They have petitioned Congress to repeal the Jones Act, or amend it to lessen the rights of the seamen. They have consistently tried to contract away their obligations, as they do in the context of passenger claims.

In recent years, courts have started to enforce arbitration provisions in a seaman's employment agreement. Even though a seaman's employment agreement is a take it or leave it employment agreement, with the seaman having no bargaining rights, and most of the time without any understanding of his legal rights, the courts have allowed ship owners to insert a mandatory arbitration clause into the seaman's employment agreement.

The Jones Act, enacted in Congress in 1920, which is to be liberally interpreted to benefit seamen, provides for a right to a jury trial. This standard of causation in a negligence case under the Jones Act is very liberal, a seaman only has to prove that his injuries were caused in part by the employer's negligence. If there was any negligence, no matter how small, which contributed in any way to the seaman's injury, under the American law, the seaman is entitled to compensation.

Not only has mandatory arbitration provisions in a seaman's employment contract taken away the seaman's rights to a jury trial, the ship owners have now been using the employment agreement to take away the seaman's rights under the Jones Act, putting a mandatory foreign choice of law provision into the employment agreement. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently, in a case involving Norwegian Cruise Lines, enforced the mandatory arbitration clause in the seaman's employment agreement which also contained a foreign choice of law clause. The court did not accept the argument that since the ship owner was trying to contract away the seaman's statutory rights under the Jones Act the whole agreement should be stricken as against public policy and thus void. Instead, the court said the arbitration provision was enforceable, and if the seaman could prove at a later date that he was denied his statutory rights, he could come back to court and oppose enforcement of any arbitration award. Obviously, a long and tedious process for a seaman, who has little or no funds to pursue a big shipping company thru long and expensive litigation, especially a cruise ship company.

Continue reading "Harshness of Arbitration Provisions in Seaman's Employment Contracts Highlighted By Piddly Award For Burn Injuries to Seaman" »

A commuter ferry boat crashed into a lower Manhattan pier early Wednesday causing injuries to 57 people, and reports indicate one was critically injured.

Firefighters and rescue workers responded to the scene at approximately 8:43am. A passenger reported to CNN that "people were thrown into the air and the ground".

Many were transported to a local hospital. Reports from the police department indicated that only one person was critically injured.

The reports indicate that the ferry boat was backing up, struck something and slammed into the pier. An unidentified construction worker reported it as follows: "the boat was backing up and hit something and that's when everything went crazy".

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the matter to determine the cause of the crash.

The ferry boat is named the Seastreak Wallstreet. It had departed from the Atlantic Highlands in New Jersey.

A ferry boat striking a pier in the New York/New Jersey area is not a first time occurrence. In October of 2003 a Staten Island ferry boat crashed into a maintenance pier and killed 11 people and injured dozens more. The same ferry boat involved in the 2003 incident, the Andrew J. Barberi also was involved in another accident in May of 2010 that injured approximately 40 passengers.

As a result of the 2003 ferry boat incident, the pilot of that ferry boat was sentenced to more than a year in prison. In that particular incident, the pilot had passed out at the helm.

The ferry boat involved in yesterday's collision is operated by Seastreak, reported to be a privately owned company which holds another company called the Interlake Steamship Company, Mormac Marine Group, Inc., and Moran Towing Comp. Moran Towing Company is the largest tug and barge operator on the East and Gulf Coast, according to their website.

This maritime incident is a surely to result in many claims from passengers and crew for the obvious negligence of the operator of the ferry boat. All passengers aboard a ferry boat, just like passengers aboard a cruise ship, are owed a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Maritime law would apply to the claims for any personal injuries or deaths. Crewmembers onboard would have rights under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law of the United States. The Federal Courts would have jurisdiction over the matter, but there is the Savings to Suiters Clause in the Constitution that does permit admiralty action to be filed in State Court. An experienced maritime lawyer will evaluate all the facts and circumstances, who the proper defendants would be in the lawsuit, and decide what claims need to be pursued against the owner and operators of the ferry boat, as well as which court the maritime case should be filed in.

Our law firm handles exclusively maritime accidents, handling serious personal injury and wrongful death cases. I have been handling exclusively maritime cases for 30 years. I have been selected to appear before the United States Congress during congressional hearings addressing passenger safety aboard passenger vessels. The appears to be a needless incident and the operator will have a lot to answer about regarding this unfortunate incident.

The National Transportation Safety Board will provide very useful information regarding the cause of this accident.

A tragic incident has been reported involving a commercial dive boat with 23 people on board. This incident happened in Pompano, Florida, and it was reported that the boat was returning after a excursion involving diving. Upon return it was reported that a "rogue wave "hit the boat, causing it to capsize.

Rogue waves are often blamed for tragic incidents such as this. Exactly what is a rogue wave is debatable. Also, there is no excuse on the part of the operator of the boat just because he claims it was a rogue wave that caused the boat to capsize.

Read the entire article about this tragic incident here.

Our personal injury and wrongful death firm focuses on boating accidents and cruise ship accidents, and we have been handling maritime cases for 30 years. Brett Rivkind has been an invited speaker in the United States Congress on maritime safety issues.

An investigation is taking place to determine the exact cause of this tragedy.

Protestors in Venice are trying to ban the large cruise ships from entering in and out of the Venice passage, which is only yards from the city's famous piazza, San Marco. Critics have stated that passage of these mega cruise ships poses a risk of environmental damage, as well as the fear of another Costa Concordia disaster which could destroy this historical city. There have been such criticism in the past of the cruise ships sailing in and out of Venice, but the recent Costa Concordia disaster has again brought into the spotlight the potential of enormous environmental damages, as well as the risk of an accident causing disaster.

The critics have been heard as the Italian government has been reported to be examining a new route for the larger cruise ships that visit Venice, which would divert them away from the San Marco area.

The recent protestors caused delays for several passenger cruise ships departing the city, e-trade insider reported. Among the cruise ships that were delayed by the protestors, were the passenger cruise ships, Costa Fascionsa, a 3,000 passenger vessel, the MSC Opera, a 1,712 passenger cruise ship, and the MSC Musica, a 2,536 passenger cruise ship.
The protestors formed in a flotilla of small boats and took to the waterways. Hundreds more lined the waterfront areas.

The images of the Costa Concordia lying on its side in the waters so close to the beautiful island of Giglio in Italy painfully reminds us of the dangers these mega cruise ships pose to their destinations if not properly regulated.

Our office continues to act as safety advocates for those injured or harmed at sea. We are presently representing passengers who suffered harm as a result of the Costa Concordia disaster. We continue to advocate for passenger safety onboard cruise ships and with respect to all aspects of boating. Boating safety is an important goal of each state's legislature. We have seen an increasing number of boating accidents in the Florida waterways, and a great number of accidents and fatalities relating directly to the consumption of alcohol while operating a boat or personal watercraft. There is growing awareness of the need to be aware of boating under the influence and regulating the operation of watercraft within each state. There was a national movement to create awareness of boating under the influence, and its dangers. The waterways continue to be a great way to enjoy yourself, but also can be extremely dangerous.

Accidents that occur on our waterways, including accidents that occur onboard cruise ships, are governed by maritime law. If a passenger is harmed during a cruise, the passenger will face very restrictive terms and conditions imposed upon them by the cruise ship company which are placed into the passenger ticket. A passenger should read very carefully their passenger ticket which outlines all the terms and conditions, including time limitations on bringing a claim for property loss, or personal injury/wrongful death.

It is good that in the recent years we are seeing an increase focus on the impact cruise ships can have on our environment. In the past years I've seen many instances of damages to our environment caused by cruise ships. There has in fact been significant penalties and fines imposed on different cruise ship companies as a result of causing environmental damages, and attempting to cover up their actions.

Let's hope the Italian government is successful in its efforts to keep these mega cruise ships from endangering such a historic and beautiful city.

The right to receive maintenance and cure if you are injured or suffered an illness while in the service of a vessel, as a seaman, is one of the oldest remedies available to seamen. It is an ancient obligation placed on the employer to take care of seamen who suffer an injury or illness while in the service of a vessel. There are a few exceptions to the obligation, and any ambiguities or doubts as to the right of a seamen to maintenance and cure must be resolved in favor of the seaman.

Maintenance and cure is a contractual form of compensation that is provided for under the general Maritime law. The obligation to provide maintenance and cure does not depend on any determination of fault. It is an obligation that is treated as an implied term of any contract of Maritime employment with a seaman.

A seaman can recover maintenance and cure even for an injury or illness that may have pre-existed the seaman's employment unless the seaman knowingly or fraudulently concealed a medical condition from his employer at the time he was hired.

The employer is entitled to investigate any claim for maintenance and cure benefits before paying them. One of the few defenses available to a Maritime employer to deny maintenance and cure, is a defense that the seaman willfully concealed a pre-existing medical condition from his employer. Most, if not all, employers of seamen, require the seamen to submit to pre-employment physical examinations and interviews. It is at this time that the seaman must be very careful not to fail to disclose any pre-existing medical condition he or she may have as this may later result in a defense raised by the employer to a claim for maintenance and cure.

In order to maintain the defense of an intentional misrepresentation by the seaman, the Maritime employer must establish the three elements in order to have a valid basis to deny maintenance and cure benefits:

1. The seaman intentionally misrepresented or concealed medical information;

2. The medical information that was not disclosed would have been material to the employer's decision whether to hire the crewmembers; and

3. There is a casual connection between the information that was not disclosed and the injury or illness the seaman is claiming maintenance and cure benefits for in the lawsuit.

Continue reading "Seamen Can be Denied Maintenance and Cure for Failure to Disclose Medical Conditions" »

Following news about a cruise ship operated by Princess cruise lines passing by stranded boaters in distress, resulting in a lawsuit, it was reported that a cruise ship operated by Disney, the Disney fantasy, was involved in the rescue of four men found drifting on a raft near Key West, Florida. We previously discussed the Princess cruise ship's failure to comply with well established maritime law governing the obligation to rescue. On a different note, CNN reported that a Disney cruise ship saved four men on Sunday afternoon.The Disney Fantasy was en route to Grand Cayman from Port Canaveral when four men were spotted aboard a raft near Key West, signaling for help. According to the article, the men from the raft were brought aboard the ship and given medical help, food and water. Rebecca Peddie of Disney Cruise Line states, "We are proud of our Disney Fantasy crew members, who skillfully demonstrated their training and commitment to maritime protocols around saving lives at sea."

It is good to hear, and to publish, favorable accounts of heroics performed by a cruise ship company. We applaud Disney for their efforts, and will keep a close eye on the lawsuit against princess for any developments.

Our firm continues to act as safety advocates for those injured or harmed at sea.

On Monday, The Enchantment of the Seas cruise ship called for help around 11 a.m. in regards to a 67-year old passenger onboard the ship who was suffering from a stroke. At the time of the call, the cruise ship was about 414 miles from Cape Cod. The passenger was retrieved by a Coast Guard helicopter and then taken to a hospital in Boston. Coast Guard Lieutenant Garin Kirkpatrick stated that "given the poor weather and the distance from shore, we had to meticulously plan the flight in order to conduct the medevac."

An evacuation from a cruise ship can be a very dangerous procedure, and one not often undertaken unless close to a life and death situation, of an extremely serious accident requiring specialized treatment. Cruise ships are generally not equipped for many emergencies although they state they comply with standards of the emergency physicians association, and hire doctors who have training in emergency medicine.

Our firm handles many cases where passengers and crewmembers have not received appropriate emergency medical treatment, some of which have resulted in death.

During any medical emergency, the cruise ship staff must decide if an evacuation if necessary. Under the maritime law, a ship owner must take steps to get their passenger or crewmember to a shore side facility if necessary. This may include a duty to turn the ship around, or head directly to the closest port, as well as a duty to order an evacuation by boat or helicopter.

The emergency faced by a stroke victim is not uncommon onboard a cruise ship. In this case evacuation was ordered and carried out successfully although it was a very complicated and delicate process.

One who travels on a cruise ship should investigate what medical care and facilities are available onboard the cruise ship, especially if one has a medical condition that could require emergency treatment, or if you are travelling with young children. Also, keep in mind the cruise ship companies will disclaim liability for any negligence of their medical staff, claiming the medical staff are independent contractors, not employees of the cruise ship company.

If you are a victim of medical negligence on a cruise ship, including a claim for failure to timely evacuate or get someone to a medical facility on land, you should consult an experienced maritime attorney who knows about the common defenses raised by the cruise ship company. One of the defenses may be the very short one year statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that passengers face.

Our firm continues to be safety advocates for those harmed at sea.

It was recently reported in Rome that cruise ships are being asked to resume their ''sail-by salutes.'' It stopped after the Costa Concordia disaster, which occurred while the captain was carrying out a "salute" in January of this year. According to an article published in the Telegraph titled "Calls for cruise ship 'sail by salutes' to resume after Costa Concordia tragedy," salutes should be allowed ''safely and securely as it was fundamental to the tourist trade which Italy relies upon, especially in the summer, when it has more than 40 million visitors a year." According to the article, tourism chiefs and hotel bosses are making this request to the cruise industry. They let some time pass since the tragic disaster and are now requesting this practice be resumed.

After the Costa disaster, cruise ships have been criticized for a practice that appears to be more common than was known when we first learned of the Costa Concordia disaster. The cruise ship company, Costa, continues to deny the captain had the permission to do the "salute" or that it was common practice. Notwithstanding the tragedy that occurred with the capsizing of the Costa Concordia, the President of the Federation of Hotel owners of Ischia ,Ermando Mennella, said that "the inchino (salute) should be allowed to continue but obviously with safety and security guaranteed for all. It is fundamental for tourism especially to an island like Ischia and if it does not continue then it will have severe economic repercussions and cost jobs in the long run. For many years now cruise ships and mega yachts have been sailing past Ischia, which has helped promote our island in times of economic crisis and last summer alone more than 7,500 cruise ship passengers came ashore."

The defense of the salute maneuver comes after Italian maritime regulations have restricted the cruise ships to no closer than five nautical miles to shore.

After the Costa incident, CEO Pierluigi Foschi also defended salutes, saying it is a necessary part of cruising and benefits the cruise experience. He forgets 32 people are dead because of this salute and two bodies are still missing from the tragic capsizing.

The towing of the Costa Concordia will start next month. It will cost more than 300 million dollars. In addition Costa Cruises just released a new ship called the Costa Fascinosa. I hope they will figure out a way to make the cruise enjoyable, and to showcase the island of Ischia without jeopardizing the lives of thousands.

Our firm continues to act as safety advocates for those harmed at sea. We are maritime lawyers based in Miami, Florida, and handle all types of cruise ship and boating incidents.

Some recently interesting developments in the maritime law field.

It was reported that there was a large settlement reached in the case involving a Philadelphia duck boat that was involved in a collision in the Delaware River. The collision caused the boat to sink in the year 2010, killing two Hungarian students who drowned when the amphibious watercraft sank after being struck by a 250-foot barge that was being pushed by a tugboat. The case was pending in a federal court where the owners of the vessels were seeking to take advantage of an outdated and harsh maritime law called Limitation of Liability. The owners of the vessels were seeking to limit their exposure to the value of the vessels after the collision, which was reported to be approximately $1.8 million. However, the settlement is reported to have been $17 million.

The Limitation of Liability law was enacted more than 150 years ago, and remains part of the maritime law of the United States. This federal statute simply has no place in today's maritime world. The Limitation of Liability Act (LOLA) was brought into focus after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion incident that killed nine maritime workers. This ancient and archaic law allows the vessels to limit their liability to the post-voyage value of their vessel. Transocean was relying on LOLA to limits its liability for the Deepwater disaster to $27 million.

In the case involving the duck boat, the amphibious vessel was plowed over by a 250-foot barge being pushed by a tugboat in Philadelphia, and the owners were trying to limit their liability to $1.7 million.

The application of the Limitation of Liability Act results in harsh consequences, and hopefully our Congress will recognize this at some point in time.

Continue reading "Cruise Ship Law News Update" »

On April 23, I wrote about how in March boaters in distress were ignored by the Star Princess.

One of the boaters, an 18-year-old named Adrian Vasquez, survived after 28 days at sea but his two friends died, one only hour after the cruise ship passed. Today it is being reported that the one survivor has filed a lawsuit against Princess Cruise lines for failing to assist, and just driving by.

In the lawsuit it is stated that several passengers aboard the cruise ship spotted the fishermen and notified a crewmember. Despite this information, the cruise sailed on. Vasquez supposedly waved a red T-shirt in hopes of getting attention from the cruise ship. He was clearly in distress. The engine of his fishing boat had failed.

Edna Ramos, the lawyer of Vasquez, says they have proof from witnesses that the cruise ship ignored the fishermen in distress. The lawsuit has been filed in Florida. Based on maritime law, "able vessels must assist those distressed at sea." Princess cruises is defending themselves saying the captain was never notified. According to a statement they released, "because of what we suspect was a case of unfortunate miscommunication, regretfully the captain of the Star Princess was never notified of the passengers' concern. Had he been advised, he would have had the opportunity to respond, as he has done numerous times throughout his career." What does not make sense is how the captain was never notified yet passengers informed a crewmember of the boaters in distress. According to a CNN article, "Vasquez's lawsuit seeks compensation for physical, emotional and psychological injuries that it alleges he suffered as a result of the conduct of cruise line employees."

I have written about the former child supervisor, Paul Trotter, who admitted to police that he sexually abused children onboard the cruise ships he worked for and was arrested in February for these actions.Trotter worked for Cunard Cruise lines and today the 34-year-old man starts his four year sentence for the crime he committed.

Also according to USA TODAY, "The Daily Echo of Southampton, England reports that Paul Trotter of Pontefract, England also will be placed on the U.K.'s sex offenders' register for life and banned from working with children." He admitted to sexual assaulting 13 year old boys between the years of 2007 and 2011. He also admitted to "taking, making and possession of indecent images of the children, who were between the ages of 7 and 13." It is still confusing how he was able to commit these disgusting crimes without detection. According to the president and managing director of Cunard Cruise lines Peter Shanks, they will be changing their recruitment process for youth centers onboard their ships. Maybe something they should have realized much earlier!