Dive boat disaster in California - update...

[JohnRBaker]

This thread was closed some time ago...

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=457402

...but there is an update in this incident:

California boat captain indicted in fire that killed 34

https://nbc25news.com/news/nation-world/california-boat-captain-indicted-in-fire-that-killed-34

If you go back and read my posts in the original thread, you'll see where I mention a couple of times about my old college buddy who was a diver and in fact had been on a dive trip on this very boat years ago. He supplied me with a lot of information about this boat and others that he had dived off of around the world. Unfortunately, he died this past April from pancreatic cancer, and I would have loved to have heard what his reactions would have been as to how this was finally playing out (he was a very opinionated person, always being up for a well fought battle of wits, perhaps him being ex-CIA helped).

Anyway, for those who participated in the original discussion, I thought that this update would be of interest.



John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[dgallup]

It's just an indictment so will be tied up in the courts for several more years I'm sure.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[dik]

thanks, John...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[thebard3]

It seems odd that the owners (and presumably the crew's employer) weren't charged. It's also interesting that the Coast Guard never cited them for failing to deploy a night watch for 25+ years, which is now one of the charges against the captain.
Maybe I'd get it if I were a lawyer.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[JohnRBaker]

I guess it's possible that the owners are going the civil route, acknowledging liability, and between them and their insurance company(s), paying off the families with the understanding that they're not criminally liable. Of course, to get away with this, they needed to throw the captain under the bus. Not saying this is what happened, just that it's a possibility (this is where my buddies comments would have been interesting).

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[LittleInch]

John,

I think you missed the bit about them applying in federal court for protection against paying out to anyone.

This is the weird 1851 law which the missouri duck boat disaster owners also tried to use which means the owners aren't liable. It didn't work there because the lake wasn't a water way, but I think here that it might apply.



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[IRstuff]

That was mentioned in the original thread on this incident

This is the latest on that subject:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...admiralty/practice/2020/in-re-truth-aquatics/

Unless the claimants have crappy lawyers, the owners are screwed; claiming no knowledge or privity essentially makes them negligent.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[LittleInch]

Then I guess it will go on whether the "owners" are separate or not from the "operators".

Many companies officially split themselves into different parts to try and limit suits on one part of the business from impacting the other parts

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.