Posted on 06/22/2023 11:40:24 AM PDT by DallasBiff
Dare-devils - like the poor - will always be with us. This event is a tragedy, but where would we be without people willing to take risks in the name of progress?
Would Lloyd’s of London underwrite this?
Exactly.š
Possibly, but it depends on the wording. Express warranties can be disclaimed. Depending on the jurisdiction such a disclaimer is not effective for bodily injury owners wrongful death. Regardless, i don't think any of these high net worth individuals' estates will file suit and expose themselves to discovery.
Who cares? They paid 250K each knowing full well what might happen. It’s expensive because it’s risky and dangerous.
Or be assassinated .š¤
Very informative!
Ordinary negligence and gross negligence are the same save for a vituperative epithet. Basically it is not as facile as you're making this out to be because different jurisdictions apply the substantive law diffetently. Nonetheless, if I were defending this company against a state court action, I would remove it to federal court based upon admiralty jurisdiction. In an admiralty case, a pre-accident waiver absolves a defendant of liability for recreational activities on navigable waters if the exculpatory clause is (1) clear and unambiguous; (2) is not inconsistent with public policy; and (3) is not an adhesion contract. Thus the flavor or degree of negligence is not the issue in an admiralty case.
I've gone on many fly in fishing trips in Canada. The risks are plane crashes during travel to and from the outpost and equipment failures while on the lake. We never had to sign anything. We paid by check or cash...
Actually, I may be wrong on this:
Furthermore, an exculpatory clause is enforceable if it is not āplainly inconsistent with public policy.ā Id. at 689. In addition, both admiralty law and New Jersey law provide that exculpatory clauses which disclaim liability for conduct beyond negligence or carelessness are inconsistent with public policy. See Charnis, 2009 WL 2581699, at *5 (noting that ā[u]nder federal maritime law [ ], owners of recreational boats may disclaim liability for negligence, but they may not do so for gross negligenceā and that ā[g]ross negligence goes beyond ordinary negligence and is the willful, wanton, or reckless infliction of harmā (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Stelluti, 1 A.3d at 694-95 (applying New Jersey law and stating that defendant ācould not exculpate itself from [ ] reckless or gross negligence,ā but could exculpate itself from āinjuries sustained as a matter of negligenceā)
A lawsuit might be the least of their problems. Some form of homicide charge is possible if they knowingly deployed an unfit submersible.
Idiotic is a mild term to describe people who are willing to go where the pressure is 400 freaking atmospheres.
Can you be sued for being stupid these days? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Never done Admiralty Law.
Frankly I doubt if this company has any assets or liability insurance. The passengers may have paid in advance and the checks deposited, but other than getting their money back, I donāt think the families have any recourse. And good luck with that.
You need money to go after money. If there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, then chasing rainbows is a fools errand.
It had no windows. What was the point? The same screen can be watched in your living room.
I never saw the Titanic because I already knew the ending. I didn’t need the tear jerking stories.
Eventually there won’t be much left of it. I would have no desire to go look at it myself.
We can already see the new Hollywood sequel to the Titanic taking shape.
Does it matter? The two dead billionaires going to sue another fellow dead man?
It had a port hole in the front.
Titanic 2 - Jack’s Revenge
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.