Conception trial begins

[jeffmg]

Playing devil's advocate, this "captain" may have one defense, which is that he was captain in name only. For example, if he was simply the primary boat-driver, but he was not a financial benefactor (other than paid hourly/salary), nor a boss, nor responsible for hiring and firing, nor the owner of the boat. If there is another owner or boss, perhaps this captain has a defense?

Or perhaps he wouldn't have a defense if there is some kind of legal definition and responsibilities around boat captains.

IMO, the biggest culprit in this incident is whoever ran this boat on the cheap, hired low-skill unmotivated labor, didn't pay for adequate safety measures, and didn't ensure there were safety protocols in place. In other words, whose choice would it be, to pay for additional safety equipment, hire workers, or fire workers? That person may indeed be this "captain" or may be someone else. I'm curious if anyone can dig up or knows that info.


----

And to devil's advocate the devil's advocate, I think there's a good argument that practically every crew member has some liability in this. And when asking "which crew member is most responsible" the most obvious answer would be "the captain."

The person with the title captain of a vessel holds the responsibility for ensuring the safety of the crew and passengers of the vessel

if someone isn't up to the task of this responsibility they have no business being a vessel captain, and if a company won't give the captain the tools necessary to keep their ship safe the prudent captain makes the company find a new one

This counts for 6 pack fishing charters up to a cruise ship with 6,000 people on it

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Bottom line.... The Captain is the Captain is the Captain

And the Captain is 100% responsible for anything, everything and every one from the moment that he or she steps onboard until the moment that he or she relinquishes or is relieved of command. .

 

[Lorenzoid]

It's this statute he was charged with, am I correct?

18 U.S. Code § 1115 - Misconduct or neglect of ship officers

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[SlugLife]

The person with the title captain of a vessel holds the responsibility for ensuring the safety of the crew and passengers of the vessel

if someone isn't up to the task of this responsibility they have no business being a vessel captain, and if a company won't give the captain the tools necessary to keep their ship safe the prudent captain makes the company find a new one

This counts for 6 pack fishing charters up to a cruise ship with 6,000 people on it

I understand the layman perspective of what a "captain" is, which is what you describe. A "captain" is the boss, the person responsible for the ship, the crew, he's the one who does the safety briefings, gives orders, sets schedules, ensures proper staffing, ensures safety and maritime laws are followed, and so on. (edit: There may possibly be laws which define a captain as some of those things.)

Whether that layman's understanding accurately describes his role, responsibilities, authority, and ownership is a valid question, because sometimes the layman's understanding doesn't match either an industry-standard or a legal-standard. For example, a captain may be the owner, the boss, or just some shmuck driving the boat with no authority.

It's this statute he was charged with, am I correct?

18 U.S. Code § 1115 - Misconduct or neglect of ship officers

www.law.cornell.edu

Reading this statute, it doesn't make much of a distinction between crew based on title. Further, it mentions owners and executive officers. Only the captain is on trial here. People not on trial are include any other crew, or any owner, or executive officer. That statute could be applied to every crew member, owner, and executive if I'm reading correctly.

My opinion of the fire going back years, is that this tragedy was primarily caused by some neglectful cheap owners, who hired cheap, didn't invest in safety equipment or procedures, such as proper escape hatches, fire-warning systems, fire-fighting systems, and so on. Next, it's whoever was the authority on the boat (which might be the captain). Next, there were a bunch of neglectful crew.

 

[nolatom]

I understand the layman perspective of what a "captain" is, which is what you describe. A "captain" is the boss, the person responsible for the ship, the crew, he's the one who does the safety briefings, gives orders, sets schedules, ensures proper staffing, ensures safety and maritime laws are followed, and so on. (edit: There may possibly be laws which define a captain as some of those things.)

Whether that layman's understanding accurately describes his role, responsibilities, authority, and ownership is a valid question, because sometimes the layman's understanding doesn't match either an industry-standard or a legal-standard. For example, a captain may be the owner, the boss, or just some shmuck driving the boat with no authority.

Reading this statute, it doesn't make much of a distinction between crew based on title. Further, it mentions owners and executive officers. Only the captain is on trial here. People not on trial are include any other crew, or any owner, or executive officer. That statute could be applied to every crew member, owner, and executive if I'm reading correctly.

My opinion of the fire going back years, is that this tragedy was primarily caused by some neglectful cheap owners, who hired cheap, didn't invest in safety equipment or procedures, such as proper escape hatches, fire-warning systems, fire-fighting systems, and so on. Next, it's whoever was the authority on the boat (which might be the captain). Next, there were a bunch of neglectful crew.

The magic words are carrying passengers "for hire". Which requires a Coast Guard license as Operator (six-pack) or Master (minimum is 25 tons, most US dive boat captains have 50 or 100 Gross Registered Tons, typically up to 200 miles offshore). And those license-holders are typically very careful about not placing that license in jeopardy--The Coast Guard giveth, and can taketh away if you mess up and lives and vessels are at risk, or worse. And this one is much much worse, and trying to play it as "I'm just the poor captain, the owner has all the power and I don't" might work in some industries, but it doesn't really cut it when taking a vessel and passengers out to sea, or anchored for the night. You can't convince your owner to pay for and post the night watch the Certificate of Inspection (typically posted on a bulkhead in plain view) specifically requires? Tell him to provide that watchstanding body, your license is no the line, and if you're snubbed, or ignored, quit and find another boat to work on.

Maybe this jury will go easy on the Captain, and maybe the owner should be on trial as well. Maybe not.

 

[Wookie]

Captain is a dumb term, and meaningless in most contexts. A captain is anyone who is a ship or boat driver, of any watercraft, whether carrying passengers for hire, cargo, or drinking beer int he bayou while gigging flounder.

Operator has meaning.

Master has meaning.

Captain is a military rank.

Captain is also a term of respect for the guy in charge of a warship.

 

[KevinNM]

My impression is that there were two people who were licensed mariners on board, the guy on trial and the second captain. The other crew have a much reduced level of expected competence and hence legal liability. The cook etc is not expected to understand vessel stability or the details of Coast Guard regulations, and doing what the captain told him to do is a viable defense. Is that correct?

 

[Cthippo]

I think there is absolutely liability on the captain, but should also be on the owner for not requiring compliance with regulations, and on the Coast Guard for continuimg to allow the vessel to operate when those regulations were not being followed. Furthermore the Coast Guard compromosed safety by choosing to allow boats that could not be economically upgraded to current standards to still operate. Regulatory agencies exist to protect the public, not businesses, and need to be reminded of that.

 

[Wookie]

My impression is that there were two people who were licensed mariners on board, the guy on trial and the second captain. The other crew have a much reduced level of expected competence and hence legal liability. The cook etc is not expected to understand vessel stability or the details of Coast Guard regulations, and doing what the captain told him to do is a viable defense. Is that correct?

Defense for what?

It depends on the vessel. A 24 hour liveaboard is required one licensed Master, one licensed Mate, and 2 deckhands. The deckhand is a position, just like Master, and requires some training to be competent. Documented training performed by the Master is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the training. If not a Master, Mate or Deckhand, the other "crew" may be stewards, which have no duty to the vessel, or may also be deckhands, and be counted as deckhands.

My stewards were trained and in service to the vessel. One steward had the responsibility to ensure everyone was evacuated from the inside of the vessel during fire, flooding, or casualties. The other steward was responsible to hand out life jackets and ensure that they were properly worn. We ran fire drills every week and abandon ship drills every first morning just before the second dive.

Everyone participated. When we had a CG safety inspection one year, it was just me, my wife (a licensed Master) and a stewardess. CG pulled her aside and quietly asked her if she knew how to start the fire pump. She said yes. You could start the fire pump from a number of places, so she reached up, started the fire pump, faked out a hose, charged it, flowed it over the side, and asked "Now what?". So when we got underway for man overboard drills, they made her be the deckhand to recover Oscar. Oscar went over the side, lost his shorts, she grabbed a radio, guided me around, when we came alongside Oscar, she had a life jacket and life ring with rope, went in and grabbed Oscar. She weighs 95 lbs, Oscar weighs 85, she had a hard time with him on the ladder, but she got him to the swim step.

Her job was to be kind to the customers, serve them morning coffee and evening wine. She made one hell of a deckhand.

 

[pauldw]

And the Captain is 100% responsible for anything, everything and every one from the moment that he or she steps onboard until the moment that he or she relinquishes or is relieved of command. .

You probably shouldn't come on my boat. I'll make sure you have a PFD on. I'll warn you about possible dangers that you might not know exist on a daysailer. I'll keep an eye on you to some extent. But I am most assuredly not responsible for submarines surfacing through the hull, or meteorites smashing your head in, or any of a variety of other things. On my boat, there isn't much black and white.