Conception Indictments

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

So dramatic were the changes that exactly the same failure to do a proper roll call led to a diver being left in the water by the same company a few years later, with the diver never to be seen again and thus presumably dead.
No jail, and the boat is still happily ferrying divers around...
My response to this is based on personal communications with people directly involved with both sides in the Dan Carlock case.

As I understand it, and I will allow people with more knowledge to correct me, is that in the Dan Carlock case, courtroom blunders allowed the blame for the failure to realize a diver was missing to be shifted away from the captain and crew, where it belonged, so that they got away with it.

The boat was chartered by a dive club, and members of that club who happened to be DMs (but were not working on the boat crew) took the roll. Those passengers were deemed responsible for failing to observe that a member of their club was missing. More importantly for everyone in the long run, the DMs had been certified by PADI, and although PADI as an organization had nothing to do with the dive, they were also held responsible and had to pay a hefty fine. The far reaching effects are that now all dive agencies have policies and waivers intended to shield them from liability every time anyone they have certified does something wrong.
 
I guess that the USCG decided that the probation period was over and everything was all good again:
Long Beach Dive Boat Operator Surrenders Credentials
The point is that most of us had great fun on all these boats, but the tacit assumption is that the liability release signed by all divers (which typically includes terms such as found on that of the Raptor boat, i.e. "in the absence of intentional wrongful conduct and/or gross negligence", anything that happens to you is not the boat's responsibility), does not free the boat (and by extension, the company) from a minimum of precautions.
If no legal charges are pressed, it appears that the USCG is sole rule making, judge and executioner?
Yes. You appear before an admiralty Judge. You may have representation, and the government can call witnesses against you. The judge makes the sole decision as to how long you lose your license.
 
My response to this is based on personal communications with people directly involved with both sides in the Dan Carlock case.

As I understand it, and I will allow people with more knowledge to correct me, is that in the Dan Carlock case, courtroom blunders allowed the blame for the failure to realize a diver was missing to be shifted away from the captain and crew, where it belonged, so that they got away with it.

The boat was chartered by a dive club, and members of that club who happened to be DMs (but were not working on the boat crew) took the roll. Those passengers were deemed responsible for failing to observe that a member of their club was missing. More importantly for everyone in the long run, the DMs had been certified by PADI, and although PADI as an organization had nothing to do with the dive, they were also held responsible and had to pay a hefty fine. The far reaching effects are that now all dive agencies have policies and waivers intended to shield them from liability every time anyone they have certified does something wrong.

The big danger with that, is in the UK (and I think in most of Europe) they are not admissible. But, if a wavier was used, and there is fault, you are in even more in the **** because it looks like you knew you where doing wrong and attempted to shift the blame.

Waivers are very, very dangerous in a UK court.

PADI go badly burned over this some years ago.
 
With all the attention focused on Boylan, as captain of the Conception, I haven't heard anything about the relief captain that was aboard for the multi-day trip. Shouldn't he also be held accountable, since he held credentials and also should know better?
 
With all the attention focused on Boylan, as captain of the Conception, I haven't heard anything about the relief captain that was aboard for the multi-day trip. Shouldn't he also be held accountable, since he held credentials and also should know better?
Instructions are specifically to the master. So if he was acting as master, yes. If he was acting as mate, no.
 
Voting occurs Tuesday December 8. It’s likely to get passed, but it has been threatened to get vetoed.

The families request that those who support the Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act which is included in the NDAA to please call your local representatives and let them know a fellow diver would like updated safety measures. It currently has support on both sides of the aisle, but every voice helps. Staffers love to hear from their constituents and can answer any questions you may have. The more input received across the country, the better.



State leaders announce Conception Boat Safety Bill included in Defense Bill
 
What a slap in the face.

Manslaughter Indictment Dismissed in 2019 Dive Boat Fire That Killed 34​


A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed a manslaughter indictment against the captain of a dive boat that caught fire in 2019 off the coast of Southern California, killing all 33 passengers and one of six crew members, according to an order made public on Friday.
The indictment against Jerry Boylan, 68, the captain of the Conception, a 75-foot commercial scuba diving vessel, failed to allege gross negligence, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California wrote in his order throwing out the charge.
Mr. Boylan “presented persuasive reasons for why the statute should be read to require gross negligence as an element necessary for conviction (and indictment),” Judge Wu wrote in a tentative ruling dated Tuesday, according to court records. Gross negligence is generally considered to involve a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
In opposing Mr. Boylan’s motion, prosecutors said in court documents that the statute Mr. Boylan was charged under requires only simple negligence, not gross negligence, and that every appellate court had rejected the argument he was making.
Prosecutors will seek approval from the Justice Department to appeal the ruling, Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, said in an email on Friday.
A lawyer for Mr. Boylan did not immediately reply to phone and email messages on Friday.
The passengers aboard the vessel were sleeping below deck on Labor Day when the fire began on a trip to the Channel Islands, a national park south of Santa Barbara. Diagrams indicated the boat had a single exit up to the galley, and the authorities attributed the deaths to smoke inhalation. The cause of the fire could not be determined, investigators said.
Calling the sinking a “preventable tragedy,” prosecutors charged Mr. Boylan with seaman’s manslaughter and said the deaths of the crew member and passengers were caused by his “misconduct, negligence, and inattention to his duties.” Actions that caused the deaths included failing to conduct crew training and not having a night watch or a roving patrol on duty when the fire broke out in the early morning hours of Sept. 2, according to court documents.
Prosecutors said that Mr. Boylan was the first person who abandoned ship, jumping directly from the wheelhouse into the water amid the chaos that ensued after another crew member spotted the fire.
“There is no evidence that defendant ever attempted to grab the fire ax or fire extinguisher or otherwise attempt to fight the fire before abandoning ship,” prosecutors wrote. “Nor did defendant use the Conception’s PA system to alert the passengers about the fire.”
Mr. Boylan told investigators that he had been awakened by the crew and was able to make a call to the Coast Guard before jumping overboard. Five of the six crew members escaped. The boat, which was operated by Truth Aquatics, eventually sank north of Santa Cruz Island. It had been in operation since 1981.
In a statement, family members of seven victims said they were stunned at the judge’s decision and called it “an outrageous miscarriage of justice” on the third anniversary of the fire, according to The Associated Press.
“The captain accepted the responsibility of ‘duty of care’ when he received his merchant mariner’s credential,” they wrote. “He violated that duty and then was the first to abandon the vessel.”
 
What a slap in the face.

Manslaughter Indictment Dismissed in 2019 Dive Boat Fire That Killed 34​


A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed a manslaughter indictment against the captain of a dive boat that caught fire in 2019 off the coast of Southern California, killing all 33 passengers and one of six crew members, according to an order made public on Friday.
The indictment against Jerry Boylan, 68, the captain of the Conception, a 75-foot commercial scuba diving vessel, failed to allege gross negligence, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California wrote in his order throwing out the charge.
Mr. Boylan “presented persuasive reasons for why the statute should be read to require gross negligence as an element necessary for conviction (and indictment),” Judge Wu wrote in a tentative ruling dated Tuesday, according to court records. Gross negligence is generally considered to involve a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
In opposing Mr. Boylan’s motion, prosecutors said in court documents that the statute Mr. Boylan was charged under requires only simple negligence, not gross negligence, and that every appellate court had rejected the argument he was making.
Prosecutors will seek approval from the Justice Department to appeal the ruling, Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, said in an email on Friday.
A lawyer for Mr. Boylan did not immediately reply to phone and email messages on Friday.
The passengers aboard the vessel were sleeping below deck on Labor Day when the fire began on a trip to the Channel Islands, a national park south of Santa Barbara. Diagrams indicated the boat had a single exit up to the galley, and the authorities attributed the deaths to smoke inhalation. The cause of the fire could not be determined, investigators said.
Calling the sinking a “preventable tragedy,” prosecutors charged Mr. Boylan with seaman’s manslaughter and said the deaths of the crew member and passengers were caused by his “misconduct, negligence, and inattention to his duties.” Actions that caused the deaths included failing to conduct crew training and not having a night watch or a roving patrol on duty when the fire broke out in the early morning hours of Sept. 2, according to court documents.
Prosecutors said that Mr. Boylan was the first person who abandoned ship, jumping directly from the wheelhouse into the water amid the chaos that ensued after another crew member spotted the fire.
“There is no evidence that defendant ever attempted to grab the fire ax or fire extinguisher or otherwise attempt to fight the fire before abandoning ship,” prosecutors wrote. “Nor did defendant use the Conception’s PA system to alert the passengers about the fire.”
Mr. Boylan told investigators that he had been awakened by the crew and was able to make a call to the Coast Guard before jumping overboard. Five of the six crew members escaped. The boat, which was operated by Truth Aquatics, eventually sank north of Santa Cruz Island. It had been in operation since 1981.
In a statement, family members of seven victims said they were stunned at the judge’s decision and called it “an outrageous miscarriage of justice” on the third anniversary of the fire, according to The Associated Press.
“The captain accepted the responsibility of ‘duty of care’ when he received his merchant mariner’s credential,” they wrote. “He violated that duty and then was the first to abandon the vessel.”
Not sure whether to be confused or sad... or maybe both. Slap in the face says it all.
 

Back
Top Bottom