Conception families suing the Coast Guard

[Shasta_man]

I don't see any thread about this specific development though I am surprised I don't.

Families of 34 killed in dive boat disaster sue Coast Guard

 

[JohnN]

I don't see any thread about this specific development though I am surprised I don't.

Families of 34 killed in dive boat disaster sue Coast Guard

I am by no means a lawyer, but I thought sovereign immunity would allow the Coast Guard to be sued only if they elected to be sued

 

[drrich2]

I thought the same thing. Googled and found an article at TheLog.com, 'California's Boating & Fishing News,' from way back in 2011 -
Is It True That I Can’t Sue the Coast Guard?

David Weil. Esq.

December 20, 2011

From that article:

"Our reader’s attorney is referring to the doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” which protects a sovereign government from lawsuits arising from government action or inaction. Under this doctrine, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it waives its sovereign immunity and consents to be sued. Without such a waiver, the only avenue of relief for victims of government wrongdoing would be via congressional enactment of a private bill. Good luck with that.

The good news is that the United States has enacted several statutes that provide such a waiver of immunity. The most significant of these is the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The FTCA was enacted in 1946 to allow civil lawsuits against the United States for claims involving property damage, personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.

The FTCA is the broadest waiver of immunity, but it does not apply to lawsuits, such as our reader’s litigation, that fall within admiralty jurisdiction. For those cases, we must look to the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA).

The SIAA was enacted in 1920, prior to the FTCA, but its scope was limited to provide a waiver of immunity only when a government-owned ship was involved in the incident. The original language of the SIAA therefore would not have waived immunity for a case such as our reader’s, which did not involve a government-owned vessel.

In 1960, Congress expanded the Suits in Admiralty Act to include all maritime claims against the United States. The statute encompasses any action against the United States that would have been maintainable in admiralty “if a private person or property were involved” (see 46 U.S. Code §30903).

It would appear, therefore, that the U.S. government has waived immunity for a lawsuit such as the case described by our reader. But … surprise: There are exceptions to the exception.

In fact, the FTCA and the SIAA both have a long list of exceptions."

I am a lay person where the legal system is concerned, so I'm asking...is the SIAA likely what allows this lawsuit to proceed?

 

[Russjstewart]

Please correct me if I am wrong but just because a Lawyer filed a wrongful death lawsuit doesn’t mean it is going to succeed. The USCG may claim sovereign immunity, a court may uphold that, a court may decide sovereign immunity does not apply. This is the opening shot in what may be a long battle.

 

[admikar]

I can't go over whole thread to see if it's mentioned or not, but lawsuit claims that CG has not properly inspected Conception. Is there any thruth in that?
And what happens if lawsuit is either dismissed or CG found not guilty? Who is taking the cost?

 

[Russjstewart]

Doesn’t the winner normally try and get costs out of the loser in these sorts of cases.? What are the implications if the CG are found liable? Are there any other cases where deaths have occurred on CG inspected vessels ?

 

[admikar]

In my country, it's part of court rulling. If you lose, you pay

 

[Wookie]

I can't go over whole thread to see if it's mentioned or not, but lawsuit claims that CG has not properly inspected Conception. Is there any thruth in that?
And what happens if lawsuit is either dismissed or CG found not guilty? Who is taking the cost?

I think it’s pretty obvious that the USCG did not hold the owners and crew of Conception to the standards the USCG is supposed to uphold, but IMO it’s on the boat owner to uphold the standards and the USCG to check for compliance by performing routine inspections.
This will come down to “were the inspections adequate to show that the owner and crew were operating with the safety of crew and passengers paramount?”. In hindsight, the CG probably erred by issuing a ton of new inspection criteria for existing passenger vessels, which was basically an admission that the USCG inspections were not adequate.
Even if the Coast Guard conducted inadequate inspections, it is unlikely that they will be found liable.

 

[scubadada]

Didn't the Conception meet the inspection criteria in force at the time?

 

[Wookie]

Didn't the Conception meet the inspection criteria in force at the time?

Depends on what you mean by inspection criteria, Craig. Every inspector is different, every individual has their own areas of expertise, and their own areas of interest.

So one inspector may look closely at your hull inserts to ensure that you had no spigot patches. The next inspector may be interested in seeing your man overboard drill. Someone else may be an electrical expert and know everything there is to know about GFI circuits.

So everyone covers the basics, flares in date, EPIRB working, life jackets number and proper whistles and reflective tape, but it would take someone pretty sharp to realize that an emergency escape trunk was inadequate or that they didn’t keep a proper night roving watch.

In all reality, the boat owner should know far more about the boat than either the hired captain or any thousands of inspectors. Inspections is a junior officer billet, filled with newbs and senior warrant officers. The smartest move the CG has made in the past 20 years is to hire back retired inspectors, to raise the knowledge base.