Jump to content

Concordia News: Please Post Here


kingcruiser1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some of you may find this article titled [I]Maritime Negligence: Who gets to pay when something goes wrong, and how legal liability can be dodged.[/I]
[I][URL]http://www.bpmlaw.com/portals/15/Documents/Legal_Lookout_1003.pdf[/URL][/I]

It is written by Steven W. Block, an attorney with "[I]more than 25 years of litigation experience as a trial lawyer." [URL]http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=310[/URL][/I]

Regards,
MorganMars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=Tonka's Skipper;34205874]I disagree while trade and practices are contractual law, in martime matters it can also be presended as evidence, the listing in the cruise borhuce does not negate the port and showboating visit..........but...........and while not a ATTY, I deal in maritime matters and have been in court, given depositions and been a expert witness............so I know a bit about Maritime matters in federal court!


But to be honest...............this is not the important part...........the Master and bridge offiers messed up big time and I alson beleive the Excutuive office staff will pay the piper as well!

So we will have to agree to disagree....


However.I agree about the criminal convictions and the congugal visits LOL[/quote]

For clarification purposes only.

The term "standard trade and practices" is found in contract law.
The term "custom and practice" is found in tort (personal inury) and crimianl law.

They are very similar in nature but do have minor differences that are not germane to our discussion. The big differences between the two terms is the legal affect of following such practices.

Following such practices will usually protect the party under contract law, but will not protect a person under tort or criminal law if a jury believes the injuries were forseeable. In other words, you can usually hide behind a shield of following standard practices in a contract case but not behind a sheild of customary practices in a tort or criminal case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Uniall'] [COLOR=Black] The [B]only [/B]reason for the fly-by[/COLOR]
is the[B] ego mania[/B] of seafarers who want to salute each other
regardless if it puts passengers in danger. [/quote][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]I'm identifying strongly with this little bit above..
[COLOR=White].[/COLOR]
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MorganMars']Some of you may find this article titled [I]Maritime Negligence: Who gets to pay when something goes wrong, and how legal liability can be dodged.[/I]
[I][URL]http://www.bpmlaw.com/portals/15/Documents/Legal_Lookout_1003.pdf[/URL][/I]

It is written by Steven W. Block, an attorney with "[I]more than 25 years of litigation experience as a trial lawyer." [URL]http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=310[/URL][/I]

Regards,
MorganMars[/quote]

Excellent and well written article. It should be noted that all of the cited examples dealt with private vessels or commercial vessels causing damage to property or conractual rights.

None of the examples dealt with a "Common Carrier" (tort law) term referring to a primary purpose of transporting people for a fare which imposes the highest degree of duty to protect and is what I've tried to set forth for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=Tonka's Skipper;34189180]Doc I don't think that spud barge is near big enough or the crane strong enough (like maybe 5 ot 10 tons lifting strenght max.) to help in the actual righting porcess. That is more a construction plafrom.

I would expect some really big heavy lift barges(like 500 to 1500 tons) and tugs to do the actual righting.

AKK[/quote]

They might use hydraulic pullers on the seabed as well, Titan has 300 ton chain pullers, and I would expect they could be adapted to work underwater.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not the case that Italy has a different set of laws? In other words, where ours is a [I]Common-law[/I] country, Italy is a [I]Civil-law[/I] country. My question then would be, "How do we in the US make valid comparisons, especially in the area of maritime law?" For instance, it has often been reported that under Italian law the Captain can be jailed for 12 years for abandoning ship, 8 years for each person lost or abandoned. Would the same apply in US Courts and in the same manner?

I also found it interesting that the Investigative Report was very careful to reiterate compliance with EU law which states that: [I]the aim of the technical safety investigation is the prevention of marine casualties and incidents, the conclusions and the safety recommendations should in no circumstances determine liability or apportion blame. [URL]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0018:EN:NOT[/URL][/I]

Perhaps, it is just my reading of it, but it appears that they are focusing more on what the Captain did wrong after the collision. Maybe that is easier to prosecute???

I would like to find the results of the Italian Coastguard investigative report which is tasked with the [I]"determination of the causes and possible responsibilities arising from the accident,"[/I] but so far no luck.

Regards,
MorganMars

[quote name='Uniall']Excellent and well written article. It should be noted that all of the cited examples dealt with private vessels or commercial vessels causing damage to property or conractual rights.

None of the examples dealt with a "Common Carrier" (tort law) term referring to a primary purpose of transporting people for a fare which imposes the highest degree of duty to protect and is what I've tried to set forth for you.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MorganMars']Is it not the case that Italy has a different set of laws? In other words, where ours is a [I]Common-law[/I] country, Italy is a [I]Civil-law[/I] country. My question then would be, "How do we in the US make valid comparisons, especially in the area of maritime law?" For instance, it has often been reported that under Italian law the Captain can be jailed for 12 years for abandoning ship, 8 years for each person lost or abandoned. Would the same apply in US Courts and in the same manner?

I also found it interesting that the Investigative Report was very careful to reiterate compliance with EU law which states that: [I]the aim of the technical safety investigation is the prevention of marine casualties and incidents, the conclusions and the safety recommendations should in no circumstances determine liability or apportion blame. [URL]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0018:EN:NOT[/URL][/I]

Perhaps, it is just my reading of it, but it appears that they are focusing more on what the Captain did wrong after the collision. Maybe that is easier to prosecute???

I would like to find the results of the Italian Coastguard investigative report which is tasked with the [I]"determination of the causes and possible responsibilities arising from the accident,"[/I] but so far no luck.

Regards,
MorganMars[/quote]

European Codal (Napoleonic) Law nations have much blurrier lines between civil and criminal law. Many (if not most) civil cases where a party's actions have injured another are also violations of the criminal code.

Furthermore, Codal Law does not have a higher standard of proof (as US) for criminal cases than civil cases.

They are focusing on the Captain because he is primarily at fault but others may be found to have been secondarily at fault by failing to stop the Captain or, even more agregious, authorizing his actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will also be interesting is to see how the Corporation ie Carnival as owners of Costa are implicated in the Italian courts with regards to blame if any.

If the ownership of Titanic is anything to go by then the tangled web of share rights and who own what could see cases against Costa for compensation drag on for many years in the same way as some of you have quoted with other claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Uniall']For clarification purposes only.

The term "standard trade and practices" is found in contract law.
The term "custom and practice" is found in tort (personal inury) and crimianl law.

They are very similar in nature but do have minor differences that are not germane to our discussion. The big differences between the two terms is the legal affect of following such practices.

Following such practices will usually protect the party under contract law, but will not protect a person under tort or criminal law if a jury believes the injuries were forseeable. In other words, you can usually hide behind a shield of following standard practices in a contract case but not behind a sheild of customary practices in a tort or criminal case.[/quote]


Well let me give you a example....a Mate has a oil spill........which occurred when *customary practices in loading cargo were being followed...

At the crimimal trial this would be brought in by the defense...so you can see why customary practices cvan be used in criminal court and please dont tell me it cant happen becuse I have been in court as a witness for a Mate who was in just such a case and was found not guilty.

WBut a am sure we will have to agree to disagree........

AKK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again....another my "data', "opinion", "knowledge", is bigger and better than yours!! A gladiator's contest! Are you trying to get this thread closed?:rolleyes: Silver

 

I hope you are not referring to me. I don't challenge engineers on engineering, seaman on seamanship, etc etc. I figure that's what they do, that's what they are. But, when it comes to issues of law, that's what I do, that's what I am.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let me give you a example....a Mate has a oil spill........which occurred when *customary practices in loading cargo were being followed...

 

At the crimimal trial this would be brought in by the defense...so you can see why customary practices cvan be used in criminal court

and please dont tell me it cant happen becuse I have been in court as a witness for a Mate who was in just such a case and was found not guilty.

What country did this oil spill happen in?

And in what country's courts was this oil-spillage case above...heard?

 

 

America is not the whole world.

Italy is a different country to what legal proceedings we might expect to happen

IF this whole Concordia thing happened on this side of The Pond

- rather than what actually happened in Italian waters on The Mediterranean Pond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was, that the report seems to document his culpability in delaying the distress call and abandoning the ship more than any error in planning the route.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

Perhaps, it is just my reading of it, but it appears that they are focusing more on what the Captain did wrong after the collision. Maybe that is easier to prosecute???

 

 

European Codal (Napoleonic)

They are focusing on the Captain because he is primarily at fault but others may be found to have been secondarily at fault by failing to stop the Captain or, even more agregious, authorizing his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What country did this oil spill happen in?

And in what country's courts was this oil-spillage case above...heard?

 

 

America is not the whole world.

Italy is a different country to what legal proceedings we might expect to happen

IF this whole Concordia thing happened on this side of The Pond

- rather than what actually happened in Italian waters on The Mediterranean Pond.

 

Good Day Aplmac

 

USA.........I am not going into details as its over now for 2 years and I consider the details a private matter morally (not legally)......its a example only, one I was invoved in as a witness. Theses rules follow most countreis in Europe, USA, Canada.............more strict in the USA.

 

AKK

Edited by Tonka's Skipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was, that the report seems to document his culpability in delaying the distress call and abandoning the ship more than any error in planning the route.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

Morgan, What happened before was nothing more then a navigation error,........which is negelence..........he would loss his job and likely his license in any country........but what happened afterward IMHO made it criminal.......IMO!

 

AKK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Day Aplmac

 

USA.........I am not going into details as its over now for 2 years and I consider the details a private matter morally (not legally)......its a example only, one I was invoved in as a witness. Theses rules follow most countreis in Europe, USA, Canada.............more strict in the USA.

 

 

Look the only reason I am entering Uniall's legal world, is becuase as a retired Merchant Officer I do have legal knowledge in what happens when there is a accident, grounding, sinking, collision, oil spill, etc and how it effect a Officers standing and possible action againist his license and possible court actions.

 

AKK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share that opinion.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Morgan' date=' What happened before was nothing more then a navigation error,........which is negelence..........he would loss his job and likely his license in any country........but what happened afterward IMHO made it criminal.......IMO!

 

AKK[/quote']

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan' date=' What happened before was nothing more then a navigation error,........which is negelence..........he would loss his job and likely his license in any country........but what happened afterward IMHO made it criminal.......IMO!

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Good Day Aplmac

 

USA.........I am not going into details as its over now for 2 years and I consider the details a private matter morally (not legally)......its a example only' date=' one I was invoved in as a witness. Theses rules follow most countreis in Europe, USA, Canada.............more strict in the USA.

 

 

Look the only reason I am entering Uniall's legal world, is becuase as a retired Merchant Officer I do have legal knowledge in what happens when there is a accident, grounding, sinking, collision, oil spill, etc and how it effect a Officers standing and possible action againist his license and possible court actions.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I share that opinion.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

Gentlemen

 

I suggest that a "fly by" at night near the entrance to a harbor with a "passenger" ship that results in inury and death is gross negligence and results in both civil liability and criminal guilt.

 

This isn't a situation like a listing in the ship's itinerary of sailing close to an island to see the volcano lava flow (e.g. Hawaii). This is a deviation from the itinerary's planned course that sends the Costa officers (and coporate managent) on a "lark of their own" for personal reasons.

 

Don't forget the age old maxim "a little knowldge is a dangerous thing." It applies to all areas of study but especially law, where there are exceptions to the exceptions to general rule in everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Gentlemen

 

I suggest that a "fly by" at night near the entrance to a harbor with a "passenger" ship that results in inury and death is gross negligence and results in both civil liability and criminal guilt.

 

This isn't a situation like a listing in the ship's itinerary of sailing close to an island to see the volcano lava flow (e.g. Hawaii). This is a deviation from the itinerary's planned course that sends the Costa officers (and coporate managent) on a "lark of their own" for personal reasons.

 

Don't forget the age old maxim "a little knowldge is a dangerous thing." It applies to all areas of study but especially law' date=' where there are exceptions to the exceptions to general rule in everything.[/quote']

 

 

Uniall your wrong about your understanding of who makes planned courses and who is therefore responsible for them......and what restrictions there are on them!

 

I have background to understand your opinion and just repeating it over and over isn't going to change the facts as I see them and have expreinced them in real life.

 

AKK

 

 

AKK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Uniall your wrong about your understanding of who makes planned courses and who is therefore responsible for them......and what restrictions there are on them!

 

I have background to understand your opinion and just repeating it over and over isn't going to change the facts as I see them and have expreinced them in real life.

 

AKK

 

 

AKK

 

Actually, I'm not wrong. There are many sub legal theorums that create the legal reality regardless of who gives the order or what they teach in Maritime Academies. Many times the law creates a duty and imposes what it calls constructive knowledge (he either knew or should have known) and a duty to control (he odered the action by failing to stop it)

 

These nuances of sub theorum affect the primary rules of law at every turn. The Master is accountable for the course the ship sailed regardless of who physcally set the course. Management is co-accountable (as if they ordered it) if they knew about it or should have known about it and did nothing.

 

Perhaps I should have accepted the offer of admission to the US Maritime Academy when I was 18 but I decided to do pre law instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is a deviation from the itinerary's planned course that sends the Costa officers (and coporate managent) on a "lark of their own" for personal reasons"

 

Uni ... By all means put me right if what i say is wrong but the above quote is made wrong by the preliminary enquiry which someone else has already pointed out to you with regard to the intended route! and the report is quite clear that the ship intended to pass Giglio that night on that intended route which can be proved by the fact that the route was charted.

 

Because this route has previously been used and more than likely by other Costa ships though we still yet have to see any proof, the fact is that "Custom and Practice" was already being used to sail this route despite Costa denying it.

 

Where you have an arguement is the 0.5 miles that the ship was off the Intended Custom and Practice route, to continue the arguement with regard to the ship being in the channel between Giglio and the Mainland is pointless.

 

What will also be interesting will be to see who shouts the Loudest if and when the courts hand out a sentance that people here think is wrong!

Edited by sidari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costa Management will say..

 

 

"Sure we ordered a fly-by...AT A SAFE AND SANE DISTANCE!

We didn't tell him to go as close as is physically possible, in order to scrape the barnacles off the paint, but not touch our hull.

 

We/Costa Management recommended a safe fly-by distance

of no less than 500 yds. offshore the nearest dangerous projecting land mass as shown on modern up-to-date charts of the area"

 

 

Whether that will work to get them off the hook, but keep Schettino still on it

is another matter that will be decided in an Italian Court of Law, done the way they run things.

And they seem fairly good at running Governments and economies, dontcha think? :cool:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...