Posted on 09/06/2019 12:46:00 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Truth Aquatics Inc. filed suit Thursday in Los Angeles federal court under a pre-Civil War provision of maritime law that allows it to limit its liability.
The suit said the company and owners Glen and Dana Fritzler “used reasonable care to make the Conception seaworthy, and she was, at all relevant times, tight, staunch, and strong, fully and properly manned, equipped and supplied and in all respects seaworthy and fit for the service in which she was engaged.”
Anyone who could make a claim against the company would be served with notice that the firm was asserting it was not liable for damages and victims will have a limited time to challenge that claim.
The time-tested legal maneuver has been successfully employed by owners of the Titanic and countless other crafts, and many maritime law experts said they'd anticipated it. Still, the speed with which it was filed, just three days after the deadly inferno Monday in which all passengers on the boat and one crew member died, struck some observers as being in poor taste.
No cause for the fire has been determined
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In today's High tech, thus high speed World it would seem to me appropriate to expedite ones defense.
Curiouser and curiouser, does this protect the owners from the crew? We’re Coast Guard rules for egress ability to passenger loading followed? Lots of questions and a hard scene to get answers from.
And if the diving community finds it to be in poor taste, I suspect Truth Aquatics will not be in business much longer. Decisions have consequences.
Unfortunately in this litigious society there are scum lawyers lining up to feast on the plight of the deceased. After all it occurred in Californication, and there is no shortage. Remember the “Twinky Defense” and if the ‘If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit”.
Glad I am to have escaped that quagmire.
Gunner
Guess his lawyers were doing their job. But, it does appear callous.
Greedy plaintiff lawyers have probably contacted everyone anyway.
One man’s “poor taste” is another man’s “prudent”.
Being an Insurance Underwriter, I’m betting it is the insurance company Legal Dept filing the claim, as I would completely expect them to. Not the boat owner.
Exactly.
While their vessel may have been in tip-top ‘seaworthy’ shape....how clear, open and safely accessible were their overnight escape/exit routes, exclusive of any catastrophe??
I agree. It’s unfortunate, but I imagine this couple will be in court for the rest of their lives even IF the fire is found to be a million to one shot.
It does, but.....
I don’t get it... So this is a way for the boat’s owners to beat plaintiffs to the punch, and if the plaintiffs had gotten their lawsuits in first, the owners wouldn’t be able to claim limited liability? Where’s the justice in that?
I wonder....
Have lawsuits from the families started yet? If not, that’s a shocker.
In cases like these - lawyers line up before the bodies are buried.
The cruise lines just offer a rescheduled sailing at a future date.
What would be a reasonable expectation for an automatic fire suppression system installed in an area for charging large mass quantities of lithium batteries?
There are clear over the head filtration hoods which filter smoke for breathing purpose and allow vision during a fire emergency evacuation. Why wouldn’t those be available to a passenger?
A gel protectant soaked fire blanket provides short term protection from extreme heat. These limit injury when in proximity to an intense fire.
A fire pump with multiple remote start stations should be mandatory. A fixed fine water fog dispersal system would block a fire’s heat, remove airborne toxins, and limit spread of the fire.
Escape may not have been a question. At that hour of the morning, after a long day of diving, it’s quite likely the passengers died of smoke inhalation. With the speed of the fire it wouldn’t matter if there were 10 exits, I don’t think they could have survived.
Through all time, sailors feared fire at sea more than anything. That was for a reason.
One wonders - with literally all the passengers dead, and the boat completely burned (and sunk?) what evidence even remains which would indict the owners?
They are arguing that everything on the boat was in Tip Top Shape.
If that is not the case, they are going to have some big legal problems.
If the boat met the standards set forth by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (1974), then it will be hard to argue negligence.
Most cogent reply on the thread
Unnoticed
Not surprising
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.