Legal considerations for the Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[pauldw]

Listen all critics of me - suing the governments is the only chance for victims families to get some money.

I hate to say these words to you, but: “governmental immunity.” Tough to succeed, especially since a government probably did not start the fire. What families might get from government is not a cash grab but new regulations intended to prevent whatever happened from happening again.

 

[Wookie]

I hate to say these words to you, but: “governmental immunity.” Tough to succeed, especially since a government probably did not start the fire. What families might get from government is not a cash grab but new regulations intended to prevent whatever happened from happening again.

I hope we get at least that. Passenger vessel safety has been behind the curve (in my opinion) for a long time.

 

[caydiver]

This whole thread is so terribly sad. Sometimes accidents happen perhaps preventible, perhaps not. Sometimes it is a car accident with a small number of victims, sometimes it’s a boat with the car accident x 10. It could be a hotel or cruise ship x 100 or 1000. If there was negligence the investigators will find it. Why would any one on an internet site want to make it worse for loved ones trying to find some solace on a search engine spew off a lot of innuendo that has no basis make their pain worse? Give investigators at least a chance to do their jobs and give those in pain a chance to draw their breathe. God bless them all each and every one and let’s not let our pet peeves put unwarranted doubt in the minds of those who are affected by this horrific and tragic event. It is what it is. If you have some inside info regarding negligence get in touch with the powers that be. Otherwise leave those suffering from the loss any where they can find info to do so from a source that can offer that them something solid

 

[pauldw]

I hope we get at least that. Passenger vessel safety has been behind the curve (in my opinion) for a long time.

Yeah, that would be good. Something should happen; you'd be in a better position than me to know what that should be. But what I don’t understand about this thing is that although it got immediate news coverage, it didn't get as much as I'd expect, and is fading already with the next news cycle. I hope, frankly, that the horror doesn't fade so quickly that people don't demand change. Divers need to talk to their politicians once it becomes clear whether some specific thing would be appropriate. And I'm not talking about making all boats look like the liveaboards the one percenters use; we can't all enjoy that sort of ideal design. But something probably needs to be done, whether it's free meth for the watch, or design changes, or whatever. Me, I think the ideal dive boat is a panga with a motor that the guy in ragged shorts can usually start. But for California divers, Washington divers, Florida divers, and whoever, hopefully this'll lead to some improvements (and not token, stupid "improvements").

 

[HalcyonDaze]

The navy solves the problem by having escape trunks. Still vertical, but they have a door to get in (like a phone booth) and up a ladder, vertically, and out another door at the top. This slows down the smoke getting into the escape trunk. From either end. They still top out at the “bulkhead deck” though, which is the lowest deck without watertight bulkheads.

Having gone up an escape trunk underwater and in full gear (classic "what was I thinking" moment from my early dive career coming out of the engine room on the ex-HMAS Hobart), I can say that it's not something I would particularly want to do in major casualty conditions with a bunch of other people trying to use it.

I think the investigation should focus on how the fire started and spread; depending on what that uncovers it may be unlikely that an alternative design of the evacuation routes would have made a difference.

 

[caydiver]

Having been on a livaboard in The Galapagos where we were on pangas for all the dives don’t understand why that has anything to do with what happened when we went to bed at night. We (parents) were in a topside cabin. Our children were below deck. We would have died saving them. Don’t add more agony. If you have something of value to add, you can contact them directly, if you just want to blow off steam have some little bit of sympathy for these families.

 

[diver42]

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.

This is a myth. Merely creating a business entity and having it own the boat isn’t enough. Failing to observe corporate formalities is a pretty common cause of veil piercing, especially for small businesses. There are likely to be a lot of plaintiffs (families or insurance companies) testing it. The litigation costs alone (assuming they’re not paid by uncapped insurance coverage) could bankrupt the company.

 

[happy-diver]

Probably - BTW what model of Volvo do you drive?

These

and this one

 

[roakey]

The law says 'two means of escape'. If both means of escape lead to the same compartment which safety may be compromised (flood, fire) then the spirit of the law is not being fulfilled because there is no escape.

If both converged on a single path of escape I could see your point. However, one or more of the windows in the dining area were emergency exits as well [if memory serves] so the two exits gave folks access to the main deck/overboard via two completely different routes that did not converge at any point.

Roak

 

[bigDave]

These.

Nice! I commend your commitment to safety.