Conception trial begins

[Cayne]

Captain of dive boat Conception convicted in fire that killed 34

A jury has found a former captain guilty in the Conception boat fire that killed 33 passengers and a crew member.

www.cbsnews.com

just popped up for me

 

[nolatom]

Captain of dive boat Conception convicted in fire that killed 34

A jury has found a former captain guilty in the Conception boat fire that killed 33 passengers and a crew member.

www.cbsnews.com

just popped up for me

I hope this brings some comfort to the many families who’ve been through so much loss, and grief.

Assume tomorrow will be argument to the Judge about what the sentence should be, not to exceed the 10 years Maximum under that Misconduct of ships’ officer statute he was charged with.

 

[rjack321]

So it wasn't "batteries" or "chargers" thing. I vaguely remember that there was speculations that it was due to batteries left charging.

NTSB concluded it started in the trash can. It could have been a cigarette, or a pile of discarded oily rags from the engine room (which can self-ignite). Or it could have been a lithium light or strobe battery which flooded and someone then tossed in the trash and only hours later the messy shorted mess ignited a bunch of dinner napkins and paper towels in there. We don't really know what the ignition source ultimately was - just where it started.

 

[nolatom]

NTSB concluded it started in the trash can. It could have been a cigarette, or a pile of discarded oily rags from the engine room (which can self-ignite). Or it could have been a lithium light or strobe battery which flooded and someone then tossed in the trash and only hours later the messy shorted mess ignited a bunch of dinner napkins and paper towels in there. We don't really know what the ignition source ultimately was - just where it started.

Sentencing is now set for February 8th, the Judge will decide. So the jury’s work is done. I hope they all take a couple of days off to decompress.

But the families’ grieving isn’t on any calendar. This trial has to have been tough on them, and their grief has no end date.

 

[boulderjohn]

According to how I read one of the stories on this, the owner is not out of the woods.

Dive boat captain found criminally negligent in fire that killed 34 off Channel Islands

Jerry Boylan could get 10 years behind bars when he’s sentenced Feb. 8.

www.mercurynews.com

Quote:

While the criminal trial is over, several civil lawsuits remain ongoing.​

​

Three days after the blaze, Truth Aquatics filed suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles under a pre-Civil War provision of maritime law that allows it to limit its liability to the value of the remains of the boat, which was a total loss. The time-tested legal maneuver has been successfully employed by the owners of the Titanic and other vessels and requires the Fritzlers to show they were not at fault.​

​

That case is pending, as well as others filed by victims’ families against the Coast Guard for alleged lax enforcement of the roving watch requirement.​

 

[Oldmanmatt]

As someone who designs and builds ships, but not familiar with US regulations, having read through this thread and looked at a few press articles; I’m just gobsmacked at the low level of regulation for such vessels in an advanced country. Even without regulation, a few cheap smoke detectors from any hardware store would have saved lives.

 

[rmorgan]

According to how I read one of the stories on this, the owner is not out of the woods.

@nolatom can check me on this (and thanks to him for reminding us of the myriad lives affected by these dozens of avoidable deaths). The gross negligence finding has major implications for the limitation-of liability-proceedings filed by the owners shortly after the disaster. Vessel owners can limit their liability to the residual value of the ship and its cargo, which in the case of a fire or sinking is likely nil.

The point of the limitations law is to prevent a shipping line from being responsible under normal circumstances for the value of lost cargo--or lost lives. The policy perspective is that having to pay for, e.g., all the cargo lost on a merchant vessel (lives lost on a cruise ship) could bankrupt the vessel owner, who has also lost its vessel, thus shifting the burden of insuring against hazards at sea to the shipper or passenger. But if the vessel owner or its responsible agents are grossly negligent, the burden of proving that liability should be limited falls on the vessel owners, whose liability will likely extent beyond the residual value of the vessel.

The result may depend on the assets and insurance coverage owned by the vessel owner, although insurers will be able to assert that the gross negligence defeats coverage.

As pointed out in the thread, the limitations statute has been recently amended, in specific response to this casualty, to exclude vessels which accommodate 49 or fewer overnight passengers in domestic waters, and 150 or fewer in international waters. The legislation was proposed to be retroactive to before the Conception tragedy, but that provision did not survive the sausage grinder, so the survivors' claims are subject to the limitations law--but with the finding of gross negligence that may not be a meaningful difference.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

NTSB concluded it started in the trash can.

That's not correct. It was the ATF that stated that, based on their reconstruction fire test. NTSB said they couldn't determine the cause of the blaze nor the location of where it started, but leaned heavily towards a battery exploding in the galley at the charging area.

 

[rjack321]

That's not correct. It was the ATF that stated that, based on their reconstruction fire test. NTSB said they couldn't determine the cause of the blaze nor the location of where it started, but leaned heavily towards a battery exploding in the galley at the charging area.

You're right, ATF. Not that its critical. I was just trying to point out that even if it *was* the trash can that doesnt mean it wasn't also battery related.

 

[nolatom]

At the risk of hoof-mouth disease, I don't see a realistic chance of a limitation ultimately prevailing, where the owner had to have known what the COI said, and must have known that his captains (well at least on Conception) were not provided with enough personnel (say one additional deckhand) to handle the late-night roving watch after the cooks went to bed.

It's the owners who keep the boat(s) in compliance with what the COI requires, and they recieve that new COI every two years, and typically frame it and hang it in the wheelhouse, and there's a box filled in that requires that roving watch. What I don't get (well, maybe I do) is how the Coast Guard (apparently) didn't know of this serious and chronic deficiency. It's not rare at all for the Coast Guard inspectors (I was one for a while long ago) to get, either by whisper during an inspection, or by an anonymous note or phone call, a crew complaint regarding safety. And it's been my experience that the Coast Guard will do everything they can to protect the complainer's anonymity. The ships with union crews can be more out in the open about this and be protected, unlike the nonunion crews, who don't want to risk getting fired. So unfortunately it seems that the smaller the nonunion crew, the slimmer the chance that anyone will make a complaint. Nevertheless the Captain here should have. It's his license, and (most if not all) Captains don't want to have it suspended or revoked.

And tactically a big procedural reason for a Limitation proceeding, is that it consolidates all claims into one proceeding (the fancy word is "concursus") avoiding say thirty separate suits in many different jurisdictions.