Legal considerations for the Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[onestep]

With a 100% fatality rate among paying customers, I can't see how Truth Aquatics will recover from this horrible disaster.

For the remaining California charters, which all have similar boats with below-deck bunk rooms / death traps, I'm very curious as to how they plan on moving forward.

The company won't recover. Scuba divers tend not to be poor. Those who dive in the US instead of going somewhere warm are more likely to be working professionals. The lost earnings due to their families will be gigantic. There could be $100 million of liability here. Most likely, the company's insurance will pay out its maximum and all assets will be sold in bankruptcy.

I expect that safety requirements for vessels like this will change when the regulators have had a chance to read the NTSB's report.

 

[EricTheDood]

And what crime would that be?
This vessel passed its required inspections, the deficiencies identified were rectified. The vessel itself was considered "safe" at the time of its departure.
Yes, it's possible the watch fell asleep. Its just as speculative that something like a scooter battery initiated a fire so rapidly and with the windows open it wasn't detected until the whole cabin was ablaze.

Something related to criminal negligence.

34 people are dead. 100% of paying customers are dead. 5/6 crew members are alive. This one isn't going to get swept under the rug.

 

[Wookie]

The company won't recover. Scuba divers tend not to be poor. Those who dive in the US instead of going somewhere warm are more likely to be working professionals. The lost earnings due to their families will be gigantic. There could be $100 million of liability here. Most likely, the company's insurance will pay out its maximum and all assets will be sold in bankruptcy.

I expect that safety requirements for vessels like this will change when the regulators have had a chance to read the NTSB's report.

This has nothing to do with an A&I thread, and needs to be moved elsewhere, but boats are specifically registered and incorporated to protect themselves from this exactly. As long as the owner was careful not to pierce the corporate veil, I wouldn't expect the other 2 boats to be affected at all.

 

[EricTheDood]

In order to charge someone with criminal negligence, there has to be some. At this point there is no indication at this point that there is any. That's not sweeping anything under the rug, that's just the reality of the law.

Someone else brought up the idea criminal charges being filed. I'm just saying if there are any charges, they would be related to criminal negligence.

I'm not debating the likelihood of it happening, but I am of the opinion that the likelihood is far from zero, due to the circumstances.

 

[Louisville Diver]

Glad to see your optimism... Unfortunately, duck boats remain in operation across the US despite a truly hideous safety record. I expect to see a few minor changes. Perhaps around the carriage of lithium ion batteries like UN-38.3 and what aircraft have to abide with (assuming the cause is even traceable to these). Perhaps something about blocking egress with a bunk, the size of an emergency exit, or not having a ladder. Beyond that, I have my doubts.​

Once all us internet warriors have figured out the culpability, I'm sure the DA will be filing charges against the 5 surviving crew asap.

Wondering about whichever idiot signed off on the inspection and annual certificates. Lots of winks and handshakes on that one.

 

[EricTheDood]

I would be careful with that implication. It's not like the boat was slowly sinking and the crew escaped in the only life raft.

You don't have to convince me, I wouldn't be on the jury and have nothing to do with the media, law enforcement, nor the courts.

I'm merely pointing out the optics, and that the likelihood of criminal charges being filed is greater than zero. By how much, I have no idea, and am not in the position to make that determination.

 

[Wookie]

Wondering about whichever idiot signed off on the inspection and annual certificates. Lots of winks and handshakes on that one.

I don't know why you keep saying this. There is no indication that the boat was bot following regulations, and I would know, as I had a similar boat doing similar things for 20 years. I can quote chapter and verse of the applicable regulations, and there is no reason to think that there was a wink and a nod to any of them.

 

[ChrisM]

This has nothing to do with an A&I thread, and needs to be moved elsewhere, but boats are specifically registered and incorporated to protect themselves from this exactly. As long as the owner was careful not to pierce the corporate veil, I wouldn't expect the other 2 boats to be affected at all.

Interesting, so each boat would have been its own independent corporate entity? I wasn't aware that is how a fleet would be set up.

 

[roman50]

The emergency hatch was leading to the same room as the stairs. Somebody posted some regulation in the main thread which stated - if I remember well - that the emergency exit should lead so other space than the main one and those two should be far away. Wouldn't be the structure of this ship in direct contradiction with regs then? If so there would be a lawsuit with the government certifying the boat every year? Just thoughts of a person NOT in the know in this area.

 

[DiveToad]

The Coast Guard stated this vessel was in full compliance of all regulations and has been for the last 5 years of inspections. They have had two faults prior. A leaking fire hose and a faulty heat sensor which were immediately corrected.