Conception families suing the Coast Guard

[Scared Silly]

Now if you file a case against the US Government (and most state governments) and win, you will almost always be awarded legal fees. In fact that is how some NGOs fund their a major portion of their operations largely by legal fee awards.

The later statement is a myth. As the prevailing party they are awarded their costs. They are being reimbursed for already monies spent. It does not fund anything.

Well, I’m not a lawyer either, nor do I play one on an obscure internet chat board.
I think we’re all spitballing here, running through the what-if scenarios.
As far as I know, you don’t sue the government for failure to uphold laws or regulations.
Otherwise, I’d like to register a complaint.

Agreed on the spitballs - have just enough information to plausibly get some to stick.

That said, the government does get sued for failure to uphold laws and regulations. Happens quite frequently for the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act among others.

 

[tridacna]

Don't lawyers sue absolutely everyone with any involvement in the case and hope to apportion some blame to those with the deepest pockets? I would have been surprised if they had not sued the CG.

 

[Scared Silly]

Don't lawyers sue absolutely everyone with any involvement in the case and hope to apportion some blame to those with the deepest pockets? I would have been surprised if they had not sued the CG.

Yes, the old adage is that you sue everyone and let the judge sort it out.

 

[Manatee Diver]

The later statement is a myth. As the prevailing party they are awarded their costs. They are being reimbursed for already monies spent. It does not fund anything.

It isn't a myth, I know NGOs that do that. EAJA doesn't care how much the lawyer is paid, simply how many hours that they worked.

Now I am not really making a moral argument for or against it as I've seen it used for both good and bad.

 

[Wookie]

That said, the government does get sued for failure to uphold laws and regulations. Happens quite frequently for the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act among others.

As an Environmental Scientist in a former life, and by my first degree, it is rare but not unheard of for an individual to sue for a violation of CWA/ESA/CAA etc, as it is difficult and expensive to bring that suit if you are only marginally able to show that you are harmed.

Of course, this would likely be a class action, although there are barely enough members to form one.

I think the plaintiffs in this case have a long uphill battle with little hope of achieving meaningful “justice”.

 

[KevinNM]

You are conflating standards with inspections. The boats were inspected to the standards in place at the time. So inspections were adequate, in hindsight the standards were not adequate.

Nope. There was one exit from the bridge level, where the crew quarters were. Which was blocked by the fire. There was never the second means of egress that was legally required. How many Coast Guard inspectors had looked at the boat and not noticed that?

P45 of the accident report
'As an existing vessel, the Conception was required to meet the Old T standards for means of escape and emergency egress, which required that “not less than two avenues of escape from all general areas accessible to the passengers or where the crew may be quartered or normally employed, so located that if one is not available the other may be.”'

There is a particular call-out of this issue somewhere in the thousands of pages of supporting documents in the docket file, but I can't find it now.

 

[danddmiller1]

I have been following this horrible story from the first day, just two years ago. I’ve reviewed the NTSB report and have read any releases. I have very serious questions regarding how the evidence and witnesses are being with held from not only the NTSB but also the victims families. They will never find the truth out. I sure hope that’s not the objective.

 

[KevinNM]

You mean the FBI/USA’s refusal to allow critical witnesses to testify?

I’m sure they had a reason. Probably like the reason they lied in court about the FBI snipers in Nevada. I’m just not seeing what FBI illegal action they would be trying to cover up here. Which could be why they won’t let them testify.

 

[danddmiller1]

You mean the FBI/USA’s refusal to allow critical witnesses to testify?

I’m sure they had a reason. Probably like the reason they lied in court about the FBI snipers in Nevada. I’m just not seeing what FBI illegal action they would be trying to cover up here. Which could be why they won’t let them testify.

View attachment 680712 View attachment 680712

 

[Wookie]

You mean the FBI/USA’s refusal to allow critical witnesses to testify?

I’m sure they had a reason. Probably like the reason they lied in court about the FBI snipers in Nevada. I’m just not seeing what FBI illegal action they would be trying to cover up here. Which could be why they won’t let them testify.

A guess? There will be a criminal case as well as the USCG investigation. Proceedings from the investigation are public record, meaning that the feds will have to give up their criminal case.

only a guess.