Crew member sues Conception

[Stoo]

I've often wondered how many fewer tort claims would be filed if we had universal healthcare and disability insurance. .

Speaking as a Canadian with a wife who's leg was broken as the result of poor driving on dive shop RHIB, I can tell you that there are many extraneous costs not covered by public healthcare. My wife, who's an educator, also has a great benefit plan. Her healthcare was "free" (surgery, hospital stay, follow-up care) but everything else was up to us. DAN insurance flew her home (We had a 22 hour drive there, but she couldn't do that), but out additional lodging, food while she healed, my lost wages while I cared for her while she was initially bed-ridden, and her lost wages. (Her plan covers 80% of wages while off.)

What we still don't know is the long term care that will be required. Her leg was broken in 5 places. Two of the breaks were right at her knee and ankle. As a result, it's very likely she'll need a knee transplant and an ankle fusion when she's older.

So while socialized medicine covers a lot, I should mention that because our costs of treatment are carefully controlled, her bill at the hospital (So an 8 day say, "internal stabiization" of her leg, which is surgery to stick a rod into her tibia) and so on was only about $12,000. I have no idea what it would have been in the US... a lot more I suspect.

We settled out of court (I can't disclose the settlement or terms) but it covered a fraction of our losses, but a court "win" wasn't a sure thing sue to the trusty PADI waiver, which specifically names fractures and negligence by the operator.

With regard to this crew member, I suspect he would make the same claims as a passenger would. Employers are absolutely responsible for their employees care. And again, to draw a comparison with Canada, if this crew member was an actual employee, his care lost wages and rehab would be covered under WSIB... Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. In case of long term disability, it would pay him a pension for life.

My long term buddy insured himself at work when he was a teenager... managed to lose a hand in the process. He collects a pension to this day, and the ongoing cost of his prosthetic hand is covered.

 

[cerich]

I would hazard a guess is that the plaintiff knows these regulations to some degree. .

the plaintiff only worked aboard for 3 weeks, and we have no idea what background is. If not a professional mariner with any sea time, I would assume they didn't know.

His position, Steward, is not listed on the COI as required under manning,. We will learn more as time goes on.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

the plaintiff only worked aboard for 3 weeks, and we have no idea what background is. If not a professional mariner with any sea time, I would assume they didn't know.

I'm sure the defendant's attorney will investigate that one thoroughly. It will be quite interesting to see how this one pans out. I would expect some blame falls with the captain. I'm wondering if there will be finger pointing between the captain and the owners.

 

[Wookie]

So question for the experts on Coast Guard regulations. Per https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/185.410

§ 185.410 Watchmen.
The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997]

Is it as cut and dry as this regulation appears to me as a layman?

Hang on. A charterer has a very specific definition in maritime. The person or company (worldwide) that had arranged the trip is not truly a charterer in this case.

 

[Wookie]

So next question. As a worker on a boat, what is the responsibility of such a person if they observe regulations not being observed?

I would hazard a guess is that the plaintiff knows these regulations to some degree. While I would not anticipate this would diminish the negligence claims by the families against the owners (as that is where the buck stops, though I am wondering about the captain - the person who is supposed to go down with the ship), given that the plaintiff knows the regulations but continued to go about his business with regulations being ignored doesn't give him a leg to stand on.

As in any case, the worker (Steward in this case) has the right and authority to point out that rules are not being followed. The owner would likely then find a new steward. I don’t know anything about California right to work laws, however.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Hang on. A charterer has a very specific definition in maritime. The person or company (worldwide) that had arranged the trip is not truly a charterer in this case.

So what is the owner of the company in this case?

 

[Wookie]

So what is the owner of the company in this case?

What company?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

What company?

Truth Aquatics (and thereby the Fitzers), the owner of the Conception.

From the link above

The owner (Truth Aquatics/Fitzers), charterer (Worldwide Diving Adventures), master (the Captain?), or managing operator (Truth Aquatics/Fitzers)....

Do I have the correct people/company identified for each term? It isn't clear to me about the responsibility of WDA. They chartered the vessel, but using the crew of Truth Aquatics, yes? I'd imagine that if they supplied their own crew, then the onus would be on them.

Is what I'm saying even remotely reflective of reality?

 

[Wookie]

Charterer is a very specific and legal term. Worldwide did not meet the definition, you can look it up easily if you like. I would refer to Worldwide as a travel agent. When a vessel is chartered, the owner does not have a representative onboard. Although the common term for what worldwide was is charterer, it’s like calling all copying machines a Xerox. Worldwide was not the charterer, and this voyage did not meet the definition of a charter.

 

[Wookie]

According to the COI, the owner is the Fritzler Family Trust. Which is not Mr. Fritzler, although he may manage the trust. The operator was Truth Aquatics, which is not Mr. Fritzler either, although he may be the manager or president. The master was Jerry somebody. Also not Mr. Fritzler.

I have no idea how strong Mr. Fritzler’s corporate protections are, but so far, he hasn’t been sued.