[ad_1]
LOS ANGELES – The owners of the dive boat where 34 people died in a fire in southern Southern California filed a lawsuit Thursday to end a potentially costly procedure, a decision condemned by some observers to be disrespectful to the families of the victims.
Truth Aquatics Inc., the owner of Conception, sued the US District Court in Los Angeles under a pre-Civil War maritime law provision that limited its liability.
The investigators are still looking for what caused the fire that destroyed the boat, which remains upside down at the bottom of the sea near the Channel Islands.
Download the NBC News app for news and politics
The proven legal maneuver has been used successfully by the owners of the Titanic and by countless other craft – some as small as jet skis – and has been widely anticipated by maritime law experts. Nevertheless, the fact that it was filed just three days after the murder of hell Monday surprised legal observers.
The families of the deceased, who are not named in the complaint, will be informed that they have a limited time to challenge the company's efforts to get away from any negligence or limit its liability to the value of the remains. of the boat, which is necessary. a total loss.
"They force these people to submit their applications and present them now," said attorney Charles Naylor, who represents victims in maritime law cases. "They have six months to do it.They could let these people bury their children.It's shocking."
Professor Martin J. Davies, Director of Maritime Law at Tulane University, said that cases still follow accidents at sea and still look bad, but that they are usually initiated by insurance companies to limit losses.
"It seems like a pretty cruel thing to do, but it's still happening, they're just protecting their position," Davies said. "This produces very unpleasant results in dramatic cases like this … The optics are awful."
US law dates back to 1851, but has its origins in the 18th century in England, said Davies. It was designed to encourage the shipping industry. Every country with a marine industry has something similar in the books.
To enforce, the company and its owners, Glen and Dana Fritzler, must prove that they were not at fault in the disaster.
In the lawsuit, they claimed to have "taken reasonable steps to make the Conception fit for sailing, and it has always been both narrow, firm and strong, fully and properly equipped, equipped and provided, and in all respects seaworthy and worthy of the service in which she was engaged. "
Even if the captain or crew are found liable, the Fritzler and his insurance company could avoid paying a penny under the law, experts said.
All those who died were in a dormitory under the main deck. Officials said the 33 passengers and one crew member had no opportunity to escape the flames.
Crew members told investigators that they had repeatedly tried to rescue the trapped people before abandoning the vessel, the National Transportation Safety Board said. None of the survivors spoke publicly.
The court record seeks not only to protect boat owners from legal exposure, but will also require any legal action to be taken in the same federal court.
A judge will hold a non-jury trial to see if the company can prove that she was not at fault. If this is the case, all plaintiffs would only be entitled to the value of the ship's remains, which, according to the lawsuit, amounts to a worthless total loss.
There is a long history of ship owners who have successfully affirmed this protection. The case concerning the White Star Line, the owners of the Titanic, was up to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a foreign owner could assert the protection of the Limitation Act, said the lawyer James Mercante.
In this case, the plaintiffs finally withdrew their lawsuits and filed them in England, where the company was based. British law, although it also limited damage, guaranteed a greater gain than the value of the remaining lifeboats.
Although the law can protect property owners from damages, more than 90 percent of cases involving injuries or death are settled before the trial, Mercante said.
Lawyer A. Barry Cappello, in discussion with another firm to represent in court the family members of the victims of Conception, said that there was a strong case to demonstrate negligence in the case. fire of the boat and that good lawyers could find a way to circumvent the right of the admiralty in federal law. court.
"The law is so outdated and so biased in favor of shipowners that damages for wrongful death cases are very limited, unless one can prove exceptions," Cappello said.
Cappello recently won a case in which a company that had rented a paddle board to a man who drowned in Santa Barbara Harbor had claimed responsibility for his liability. One judge ruled that the admiralty law did not apply to such trades, although the company appealed.
Davies said that after what he had heard about the disaster, it was realistic to think that the owner could carry it out if the boat was properly equipped and if the cause of the disaster was there. The fire remained mysterious.
If the owner loses, there is an unlimited liability potential.
"That's why the fight is always a matter of limitation because if you have unlimited liability, well … 30 dead is a lot of money," said Davies.
[ad_2]
Source link