Legal considerations for the Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[ReefHound]

It doesn't really define what is a "suitable number" or what is "throughout" or what is an acceptable frequency of patrol. Would the night captain suffice?

 

[Wookie]

It doesn't really define what is a "suitable number" or acceptable frequency of patrol. Would the night captain suffice?

It obviously did not. That's why it will hurt. The problem is, the CG has you screwed. You could have 10 night watchstanders, one in every space, and if a person fell overboard, was injured in a fire, had a psychotic break and injured someone else, then it's the Owner, Master, or operator's fault, because you didn't have sufficient watchmen.

The advantage always goes to the house.

 

[nolatom]

Might I digress from waivers?
The best (and expected) news I just read is that a formal Marine Board of Investigation will indeed be convened, apparently by Coast Guard Commandant rather than just the Sector Commander in Southern Cal, so it will be a big deal. I'm interested to see if the NTSB takes part in this Board (probably) and whether it's a "joint" board with the two agencies, or NTSB doing some kind of hearing separately (possible).
Coast Guard convenes high-level investigation of dive boat fire | WorkBoat

Despite the CG being not just an inquisitor but also under the microscope in this matter for their regs, inspections, and oversight of an Inspected Vessel, and the NTSB hence focusing on the Coast Guard (who don't get to do vice-versa since NTSB is independent of regulators), I believe this is the best way to get the likely facts aired publicly in the quickest way compared to informal investigations with written reports "someday". And I hope any possible criminal investigations don't damp down or close off the testimony of those who know the most.

The Safety Bulletin gives a good idea of where they're looking, after presumably having interviewed some or all of crew/owner--lithium ion batteries, and fire exits. See MSIB 008-19 here: Marine Safety Information Bulletins

 

[Wookie]

Might I digress from waivers?
The best (and expected) news I just read is that a formal Marine Board of Investigation will indeed be convened, apparently by Coast Guard Commandant rather than just the Sector Commander in Southern Cal, so it will be a big deal. I'm interested to see if the NTSB takes part in this Board (probably) and whether it's a "joint" board with the two agencies, or NTSB doing some kind of hearing separately (possible).
Coast Guard convenes high-level investigation of dive boat fire | WorkBoat

Despite the CG being not just an inquisitor but also under the microscope in this matter for their regs, inspections, and oversight of an Inspected Vessel, and the NTSB hence focusing on the Coast Guard (who don't get to do vice-versa since NTSB is independent of regulators), I believe this is the best way to get the likely facts aired publicly in the quickest way compared to informal investigations with written reports "someday". And I hope any possible criminal investigations don't damp down or close off the testimony of those who know the most.

The Safety Bulletin gives a good idea of where they're looking, after presumably having interviewed some or all of crew/owner--lithium ion batteries, and fire exits. See MSIB 008-19 here: Marine Safety Information Bulletins

Sector Key West is in our conference room now having a big meeting. Lawyers from sector are here. I am not listening in, but i have heard battery and fire a number of times.

The navy is also taking notice. We are getting direction. A little knee-jerk at this time, but it will smooth out.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

F

Bringing this back home, on a dive liveaboard, the passengers have no real ability to assess whether the boat is adequately designed or maintained for fire safety. The owner does have an obligation, as someone who offers a service to the public in that regard, to make it safe. They cannot avoid or evade that obligation with clever liability waivers.

This is the key for me. I have no problem signing a waiver regarding what happens to me from the time I splash up to the time I am back on the surface. The actual dive (including analyzing my mixes) is my personal responsibility and I am willing to acknowledge that. But, during time I am geared but not in the water, I am dependent to a large degree on the boat staff for getting me in and out of the water safely, and I think a blanket waiver here is not appropriate, as this is the time any diver is most vulnerable to injury because of the heavy gear, wearing fins, etc, not to mention the boat approaching safely and not injuring the diver. And, finally, while I am on the boat, whether you call it a "taxi" or not, it is the boat operator who is responsible for safe conditions, including where, when and whether people can charge batteries, means of escape, safe design, alarms, etc. Passing an inspection does not confer some sort of immunity for this, and neither should a waiver be permitted.

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . . .Passing an inspection does not confer some sort of immunity for this, and neither should a waiver be permitted.

Comments from the professionals here suggest that passing an inspection does NOT confer immunity, and a waiver of all claims is NOT automatically "permitted"--the boat operator IS responsible for certain things, no matter what the waiver might say on its face. So it seems you have your wish.

 

[djcheburashka]

I have no problem signing a waiver regarding what happens to me from the time I splash up to the time I am back on the surface. ... I am dependent to a large degree on the boat staff for getting me in and out of the water safely, and I think a blanket waiver here is not appropriate, as this is the time any diver is most vulnerable to injury because of the heavy gear, wearing fins, etc, not to mention the boat approaching safely and not injuring the diver. And, finally, while I am on the boat, whether you call it a "taxi" or not, it is the boat operator who is responsible for safe conditions, including where, when and whether people can charge batteries, means of escape, safe design, alarms, etc. Passing an inspection does not confer some sort of immunity for this, and neither should a waiver be permitted.

That’s exactly right. Any operator who describes themselves as a “taxi” or has some kind of elaborate waiver, that’s a huge red flag. That’s an operator that is trying to get out of its responsibilities, is trying to do the bare minimum, and doesn’t have a genuine concern for safety.

 

[djcheburashka]

Comments from the professionals here suggest that passing an inspection does NOT confer immunity, and a waiver of all claims is NOT automatically "permitted"--the boat operator IS responsible for certain things, no matter what the waiver might say on its face. So it seems you have your wish.

Unfortunately, we also have a culture in the dive professional community that is unwilling to acknowledge this. People who obsess endlessly over their waivers, quote the coast guard regulations as evidence of their safety, and then whine and complain about lawyers.

Those people are dangerous. They’re dangerous to their customers, and they’re dangerous to the sport.

Look at what’s happened with gear. We have smbs that don’t work as signal devices. Poorly designed bcs that force divers to overweight, and on and on. The reason is this culture of endlessly shifting all responsibility to the diver, and folks refusing to take responsibility for the products and services they put out into the market.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

That’s exactly right. Any operator who describes themselves as a “taxi” or has some kind of elaborate waiver, that’s a huge red flag. That’s an operator that is trying to get out of its responsibilities, is trying to do the bare minimum, and doesn’t have a genuine concern for safety.

I don't go that far. The "taxi" reference is generally used when discussing the boat operator's disclaiming liability in the case of a diving accident, and I do agree that diving responsibility is on me unless the boat staff intervenes in some totally unexpected way. But, while I am on the boat (or, in the "taxi")--it is on them.

 

[ReefHound]

NTSB has issued a preliminary report saying that all crew members were asleep in their bunks when the fire happened.

Crew of Boat Were Sleeping When Fatal Fire Broke Out