Blame on the Captain

While evidence of the failings of the Captain continue to stack up I find it rather surprising that the owners are so quick to condemn him before the 'Black Box' has been examined.

Could it be that the owners would be able to recover more insurance money for an act of negligence on behalf of crew rather than, say, power failure or an uncharted reef?

While evidence of the failings of the Captain continue to stack up I find it rather surprising that the owners are so quick to condemn him before the 'Black Box' has been examined.

Could it be that the owners would be able to recover more insurance money for an act of negligence on behalf of crew rather than, say, power failure or an uncharted reef?

No. If anything insurance would pay MORE if it were truly unmapped rocks.

If it's found that the collision was directly caused by the egregious behavior of the captain, the insurance will attempt to claim that the cruise line was to blame and therefor refuse to pay claims outside of third party liability.

If you blow your house up because you're playing with TNT in the basement, your insurance isn't going to cover the loss.

Speaking for myself the biggest issue with the captain isn't the rocks, it's his deplorable behavior in the emergency.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with several cruise ship captains and they were all very impressive men. I can't believe any of them would have gone to pieces like that and fail his passengers and crew so miserably. I guess you never know -- during the famous phone call the captain mentions his first officer was with him ashore. What are the odds of two cowards serving in such important positions. :confused:

When the captain abandoned his responsibilities, the first officer should have stood up and not slunk ashore with him.

- during the famous phone call the captain mentions his first officer was with him ashore.

When in the phone call did the captain say he was ashore?

In terms of liability, placing blame squarely on the captain is effectively the same as the cruise line accepting full blame themselves. That they have been so quick to do so indicates that the evidence is very damning against the captain.

The captain of that ship is worth less then the stain on the bottom of my boot.

I believe the issue may be found in Italian Law where the company and it's officers may be found criminally liable if they were complicit in the crime.

Costa was very quick to point the finger at the captain and saying they had no prior knowledge or involvement, trying to shield themselves, possibly, from criminal charges.

We shall see if that was bravado or if it was true as the investigation surely will focus on that issue among many others.

I believe the issue may be found in Italian Law where the company and it's officers may be found criminally liable if they were complicit in the crime.

 

Costa was very quick to point the finger at the captain and saying they had no prior knowledge or involvement, trying to shield themselves, possibly, from criminal charges.

 

We shall see if that was bravado or if it was true as the investigation surely will focus on that issue among many others.

This is a terrible tragedy & the authorities should go to all lengths to get to the truths of this incident:rolleyes:.

As far as who is guilty & who are innocent,we trust that all that will be known in the future:eek:.

Speaking for myself the biggest issue with the captain isn't the rocks, it's his deplorable behavior in the emergency.

 

I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with several cruise ship captains and they were all very impressive men. I can't believe any of them would have gone to pieces like that and fail his passengers and crew so miserably. I guess you never know -- during the famous phone call the captain mentions his first officer was with him ashore. What are the odds of two cowards serving in such important positions. :confused:

 

When the captain abandoned his responsibilities, the first officer should have stood up and not slunk ashore with him.

IMO, the captain and first officer are criminals fleeing the scene of the crime they committed. Did anyone do an alcohol or drug test on them right away?

It's happened before.

Only 2 entertainment staff (musicians) stayed to help. Captain and crew long gone.

I am a bit curious why the captain would leave the ship while the rescue operation was still going on. It was obvious to him that his life was not in any danger and he was probably more experienced with the sea than 99.9% of people on that ship, so what could prompted him to get off the ship? Was he trying to disappear knowing the consequence of what the disaster could bring him?

I am a bit curious why the captain would leave the ship while the rescue operation was still going on. It was obvious to him that his life was not in any danger and he was probably more experienced with the sea than 99.9% of people on that ship, so what could prompt him to get off the ship? Was he trying to disappear knowing the consequence of what disaster could bring him?

It's an instinct called "self-preservation". No one knows what they will do in such a situation...until they are faced with it.

What bothers me is that he had "a history"....yet the cruiseline kept him on as a captain. This really makes me lose confidence in the cruising industry. I'd really feel better if he had a stellar record.

NBC News is reporting that the captain had a history of disobeying orders. Schettino, according to Italian news reports, had once left Marseilles, France, in bad weather, against company policy and coast guard orders. The captain was also once reportedly caught sailing too close to the shore in another part of Italy.

The captain of that ship is worth less then the stain on the bottom of my boot.

Agrees.

This was a reckless mistake made by an obviously incompetent Captain. He appears to not only be cowardly but clueless as well. He actions were atrocious and inexcusable. I do hope maritime law prosecutes him to the full extent.

This captain was a risk taker. Humans have a varying degree of logical and practically behavior. I'm sure 99.9% of ship's captains were never do such a stunt or at least I would hope they wouldn't plan to. I don't think this captain willfully wanted to cause this accident, but he certainly was negligent in doing so. At the time he thought this would be a nice gesture to do a "cruise by," the island. BUT....he had absolutely no authority to make this decision on his own merit. He would have needed permission from Costa HQ as well as coordinate it with the port of Giglio. Why he didn't....that is the question to be answered by the captain. There are inherit dangers cruising so close by an island. I don't care what his sea map showed or did not show. You don't take a $500M ship with 4,000 people and do something so reckless unless it was due to severe and dangerous weather, medical emergency, to avoid a collision or some other dangerous situation (an explosion or fire) on board which might warrant a deviation from planned route. Even then you have to contact the proper authorities to advise of your situation.

This captain was a risk taker. Humans have a varying degree of logical and practically behavior. I'm sure 99.9% of ship's captains were never do such a stunt or at least I would hope they wouldn't plan to. I don't think this captain willfully wanted to cause this accident, but he certainly was negligent in doing so. At the time he thought this would be a nice gesture to do a "cruise by," the island. BUT....he had absolutely no authority to make this decision on his own merit. He would have needed permission from Costa HQ as well as coordinate it with the port of Giglio. Why he didn't....that is the question to be answered by the captain. There are inherit dangers cruising so close by an island. I don't care what his sea map showed or did not show. You don't take a $500M ship with 4,000 people and do something so reckless unless it was due to severe and dangerous weather, medical emergency, to avoid a collision or some other dangerous situation (an explosion or fire) on board which might warrant a deviation from planned route. Even then you have to contact the proper authorities to advise of your situation.

No...he was arrogant...a show off...not a risk taker.

A risk taker would go into danger despite a risk. He chose to abandon ship...and not return...despite being ordered to do so.

MsTabbyKats, I am with you on that. My work is paperwork, yet I have evaluations twice a year. Isn't there something performed by Carnival to determine who can be on a ship, and in what position? When something happens, the management is responsible too.

MsTabbyKats, I am with you on that. My work is paperwork, yet I have evaluations twice a year. Isn't there something performed by Carnival to determine who can be on a ship, and in what position? When something happens, the management is responsible too.

Even with a psych evaluation...one cannot tell how a person will react when faced with danger. No matter what the job description says....one of our basic instincts is self-preservation.

BUT....when a person who is responsible of thousands of lives weekly is allowed to maintain that position despite breaking protocol multiple times....it is 100% managements responsibility.

A company is only as good as the staff it hires....Costa failed.

There appears to be a lot more to this story than we all know. BBC is reporting that the ship cruised right by this spot where it struck last August and it was 'approved' by the Cruiseline. Also, the charts do not show anything at that spot, although they might not have been in the correct scale.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16604154

It would be interesting to hear how often a captain deviates from their planned route. I suspect it might be somewhat often, especially as they leave busy harbours, etc.

Edit: Also, just thinking, reading his account, it appears as though he could not get back on board because there were other rescue boats blocking the exit point he was supposed to be using. I am not defending the guy, but if there were a hundred people trying to get off and onto a lifeboat, and he was trying to get back on, then I can see why it was difficult for him.

The captain of that ship is worth less then the stain on the bottom of my boot.

True -- his picture should be shown in the dictionary under COWARD!

The captain is ultimately responsible. And when they are showing off for friends, He shoud fry

IMO, the captain and first officer are criminals fleeing the scene of the crime they committed. Did anyone do an alcohol or drug test on them right away?[/quote]

 

Good question.

I know it's all "water under the bridge" now, but i thought to share some facts about this captain.

We were on an atlantic cruise with the Costa Europa (now sold to Thompson) in july 2009 and, as costa does traditionally, we were offered a drink and cake to celebrate our national holiday (21 july for Belgium). We attended although the timing was wrong (cake just before the late seating dinner?), and we were about 15 people. I remember the captain well, tan faced, looking well and glamorous in his white uniform (nothing wrong with that) and passing by each group and exchanging a few words here and there. We instantly disliked him because he was NOT AT ALL sympathetic! It was obvious that he was not interested in talking to passengers.

A few days later we were cruising and were followed by Pullmantur's Pacific Dream (ex Celebrity ship) on the left (our port side) ever since leaving the Casablanca port. Slowly the P Dream crept up on us and even overtook us. Our ship moved over to the left and was getting behind with the P dream on the right in front now. Then we reached the port entrance of Arrecife in Lanzarote and i wondered who would get in port first. That was soon solved when our ship sharply turned portside (left) to overtake the in front sailing Dream on the inside of the circle in a sharp U-turn. This manoeuver went so fast that the swimming pool overflowed, flooding the whole stern. But we beat the Dream and got in port first, thanks to this quick action from the bridge. I have never before seen this done on a cruise! I have a picture of this

In Feb 2010 the same Costa Europa hit the pier in Sharm el Sheikh, so called after a vicious wind jolt. Duh. And who was at the helm, yeah right, captain Schettino! And who can prove that there was a sudden wind jolt? It would be his word against someone elses.

All a coincidence perhaps. Possible, but when i put all the facts together it looks to me that there is a whole trail of suspicious circumstantial evidence that this captain has left behind.

JP:rolleyes:

There appears to be a lot more to this story than we all know. BBC is reporting that the ship cruised right by this spot where it struck last August and it was 'approved' by the Cruiseline. Also, the charts do not show anything at that spot, although they might not have been in the correct scale.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16604154

Click on the link again and scroll down to the bottom. You will see that the story has been updated to remove that info:

Clarification 18 January 2012: An earlier version of this story said that no rocks were shown on the UKHO's charts where the Costa Concordia sank. The organisation has pointed out that this is immaterial as the ship capsized some distance from where it hit rocks.

In terms of liability, placing blame squarely on the captain is effectively the same as the cruise line accepting full blame themselves. That they have been so quick to do so indicates that the evidence is very damning against the captain.

I am afriad that is not correct........if the line can prove that the captians action cuased the casulity with their knowledge, then there liability legally is consiterable reduced..........The only reason that they are throwing the captian under the bus (not that hes right) and very qiuckly saying they knew nothing!

As to insurance, this is all maritime law and insurance, all very different then shoreside! (and also more confusing *G*)

AKK

I am afriad that is not correct........if the line can prove that the captians action cuased the casulity with their knowledge' date=' then there liability legally is consiterable reduced..........The only reason that they are throwing the captian under the bus (not that hes right) and very qiuckly saying they knew nothing!

 

As to insurance, this is all maritime law and insurance, all very different then shoreside! (and also more confusing *G*)

 

AKK[/quote']

 

As the holder of an insurance brokers license and former employee of one of the largest international marine indemnity carriers in the world, I can say with certainty that while there are some differences, bottom line Costa and their parent company and insurance carriers are still on the hook for what could likely hit close to a billion dollars in various P&C and ABL claims.

 

If it was a crew member who caused the collision, Costa might have a bit of wiggle room. But because it was an officer, they are 100% on the hook. Officers of any company are held to a higher standard than employees and top level officers are considered to be entirely representative of the company itself. They act as an authorized agent which makes the company 100% responsible for their actions.