Conception families suing the Coast Guard

[scubadada]

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.

I stated this incorrectly, didn't they pass their inspections? Very difficult to check the behavior of the captain and crew while out on a trip.

 

[Wookie]

I stated this incorrectly, didn't they pass their inspections? Very difficult to check the behavior of the captain and crew while out on a trip.

Yes, they passed their inspections.

 

[letterboy]

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.

eww almost as bad as those safety guys.

 

[drrich2]

There's an article at MarineInjuryLaw.com - Coastguard Negligence: When Seafarers Are Better Off Amongst The Flotsam - that's got an interesting bit:

"Lawsuits against the Coast Guard for injury to persons or property damage generally must be brought under a federal statute known as the "Suits in Admiralty Act." The Suits in Admiralty Act is a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity from civil lawsuits in certain maritime contexts. In other words, it empowers parties injured by the Coast Guard to demand compensation. Additionally, the Suits in Admiralty Act simplifies rules regarding where and when an injured plaintiff may file a civil suit concerning a government owned ship.

While the Suits in Admiralty Act provides those injured at sea with some important rights, it also lays out certain specific limitations. For instance, Coast Guard negligence suits under the Act must be brought within two years of the incident in question, and claims under the Act are tried without a jury, making a skilled maritime attorney who fully understands the law an especially important asset to injured plaintiffs."

No jury, eh? Interesting.

 

[KevinNM]

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.

The fact that there was not and had never been the legally required second exit from the bridge deck is a pretty good start to arguing that the inspections were not good. This isn't a subtle issue. It was in the face of every inspector since the ship was built.

Also, the fact that the Vision had passed inspection but when re-inspected after the Conception disaster (but under the same criteria) was found to have multiple serious issues is another.

Not saying it will fly, but they have a reasonable argument.

 

[Russjstewart]

There's an article at MarineInjuryLaw.com - Coastguard Negligence: When Seafarers Are Better Off Amongst The Flotsam - that's got an interesting bit:

"Lawsuits against the Coast Guard for injury to persons or property damage generally must be brought under a federal statute known as the "Suits in Admiralty Act." The Suits in Admiralty Act is a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity from civil lawsuits in certain maritime contexts. In other words, it empowers parties injured by the Coast Guard to demand compensation. Additionally, the Suits in Admiralty Act simplifies rules regarding where and when an injured plaintiff may file a civil suit concerning a government owned ship.

While the Suits in Admiralty Act provides those injured at sea with some important rights, it also lays out certain specific limitations. For instance, Coast Guard negligence suits under the Act must be brought within two years of the incident in question, and claims under the Act are tried without a jury, making a skilled maritime attorney who fully understands the law an especially important asset to injured plaintiffs."

No jury, eh? Interesting.

Call me a cynic but in the only case quoted the article said “In one particularly egregious case, a woman's husband sued the Coast guard after his wife plummeted to her death out of a Coast Guard helicopter after not being properly strapped in” Two red flags this raises, it did not say successfully sued, and it did not say the husband used that law firm. Is this an example of lawyers trying to drum up business?
Are there any figures on how many people have successfully sued the USCG?

 

[drrich2]

The fact that there was not and had never been the legally required second exit from the bridge deck is a pretty good start to arguing that the inspections were not good.

But the issue of grandfathering in may be in play. If this was a case of a pre-existing vessel eligible to be grandfathered in and thus not have to meet that requirement, then it becomes a moot point. It's been awhile since reviewing one of those extensive Conception-related threads; was this a case of grandfathering in?

Richard.

 

[Scared Silly]

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.

Except I am not sure that can not be used against USCG if the case gets to court. That is they can not held liable for something that in hindsight was inadequate when at the time all other standards were otherwise met. Or something to that affect. Not a lawyer but I recall bits of case where an entity was being sued over an incident involving a car crash, after it happened the roadway was changed. The fact the roadway was changed could not be used in court as evidence there was a defect as the original roadway met the standards and there was otherwise no defect.

The fact that there was not and had never been the legally required second exit from the bridge deck is a pretty good start to arguing that the inspections were not good. This isn't a subtle issue. It was in the face of every inspector since the ship was built.

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.

The issue is that while there was second exit from the below deck sleeping quarters it was inadequate. However, the fact it was inadequate is moot because there was not an adequate fire detection and alarm system in place. Which comes back to, that given the investigation, there was not an adequate charging station. So many defects in the standards.

FWIW This summer while on a boat, we had cabins next to the salon. The only exit was out the cabin door into the salon. Had there been a fire in salon we had no other means of egress. However, we had nice large windows which I am sure I could have broken. Given the Conception fire I suggested to the boat owners have a window breaker in each cabin.

 

[Manatee Diver]

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

In the US it depends on the court, the jurisdiction, the type of case, and the judge. Although I don't think the US Government is regularly awarded legal fees, as the lawyers are generally government employees. In general judges will look at the litigants' respective sizes and motives. If it is a David v Goliath and David was operating in good faith despite losing, they aren't going to award attorney's fees. If they were operating in bad faith often because they are filing a case to annoy, or hoping a judge would ignore the law, then attorney's fees are award as a punitive measure. Everything in between depends on the judge you get and the case.

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.

 

[Wookie]

Except I am not sure that can not be used against USCG if the case gets to court. That is they can not held liable for something that in hindsight was inadequate when at the time all other standards were otherwise met. Or something to that affect. Not a lawyer but I recall bits of case where an entity was being sued over an incident involving a car crash, after it happened the roadway was changed. The fact the roadway was changed could not be used in court as evidence there was a defect.

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.