Maritime News & Law

Published on: January 31, 2017

Final El Faro Hearing Scheduled

The third and final EL FARO hearing has been scheduled for February 6, 2017 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation will focus on crew witnesses, TOTE company officials, Coast Guard officials as well as the contents of EL FARO’S voyage data recorder (VDR). The transcript of bridge audio recordings was released on December 13, 2016, by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

The examination of data from the voyage data recorder began on August 15, one week after the device was located at a depth of 15,000 feet and brought to the surface. NTSB recovered about 26 hours of information from the device, including bridge audio, navigational data, onboard radar images, route planning and wind data.

The investigation seeks to determine which factors contributed to the sinking, and will look for evidence of misconduct, inattention to duty, negligence, willful violation of the law by any licensed or certified person, as well as whether there is any evidence that Coast Guard personnel or any government employee contributed to the accident.

Published on: May 12, 2014

F/T AMERICAN DYNASTY Incident Report: Canadian Transportation Board Finds American Seafoods Company Lacked Safety Procedures in 2013 Allision

by Stacey & Jacobsen, PLLC

The Canadian Transportation Board has issued a report criticizing American Seafoods Company for a lack of safety preparedness in a 2013 allision between AMERICAN DYNASTY and Canadian Frigate HMSC WINNIPEG. AMERICAN DYNASTY is a 272-foot American factory trawler run by a crew of up to 150 crewmen which experienced an electrical blackout while docking in Esquimalt, Victoria B.C., in 2013. During the blackout, the vessel gained speed and veered to the starboard before striking the WINNIPEG. The Safety Board noted that the auxiliary motors did not automatically turn on during the black out, and there was a breakdown in communication between the bridge and engineering department, resulting in the engineer not knowing the need to take urgent action to avoid the allision.

The Transportation Board stated: “The investigation found that, without procedures and comprehensive emergency drills, crews may not be proficient in taking mitigating action during an emergency. Effective management of safety requires individuals at all levels of an organization to identify and manage risks. In this occurrence, there were indications that aspects of safety associated with emergency preparedness and crew familiarization were not managed effectively.”

No injuries to the crew of AMERICAN DYNASTY were reported. However, six shipyard workers aboard WINNIPEG were reported to have suffered injuries. Although the impact was relatively slow, the size and power of these ships resulted in serious damage to both vessels.

Published on: September 4, 2013

Court of Appeals Limits Maintenance and Cure Defense

by Stacey & Jacobsen, PLLC

Many maritime employers require their prospective crewmen to answer a preemployment health questionnaire. These health questionnaires are rarely used in the hiring process and are instead utilized as weapons by maritime employers to attack the seaman’s credibility in cases where the seaman later becomes injured and seeks compensation under the Jones Act or Unseaworthiness Doctrine.

If a seaman fails to disclose a preexisting medical condition in response to a health questionnaire, the employer then attempts to deny the crewman maintenance and cure benefits, arguing that the seaman willfully concealed a preexisting condition. This defense to maintenance and cure claims, based upon willful concealment of preexisting medical conditions when asked to make disclosure in a health questionnaire, can be traced to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship, 396 F.2d 547 (1968).

McCorpen did not hold that a maritime employer asserting the willful concealment defense could recover maintenance and payments they alleged were wrongfully paid. Nevertheless, some maritime employers have improperly sought to recover the previously paid benefits made to the injured seaman. This intimidation tactic is designed to frighten seamen who have been injured through the negligence of their employer or the unseaworthiness of their vessel into not bringing suit or settling their cases for less than fair compensation.
Continue reading

Published on: February 8, 2013

Rescues at Sea, the United States Coast Guard, and Issues of Liability

by Lysander Johnson

Laws regarding saving human life are not always cut and dry. According to federal law, 45 USC Section 2304, the master of a vessel must aid anyone at sea who is in danger of losing their lives, as long as such rescue can be performed without serious threat to the master, the master’s vessel, and those on board. However, maritime law is in agreement with common law in that an individual, including a vessel master, has this statutory duty to assist those in peril at sea only when a certain relationship exists, such as carrier/passenger, vessel/seaman, and employer/employee; also, whoever has caused a danger at sea must aid any persons or property they have endangered. Further, whether because of an established relationship or as a Good Samaritan, if an individual attempts a rescue which results in further harm due to negligence, recklessness, or wantonness, he or she may be held liable for damages.

How does this relate to the United States Coast Guard, which is a federal agency, and USCG employees? Does the USCG have a duty to provide rescue on demand? What standards of performance and care apply to the USCG, and under what circumstances can the USCG be held liable?
Continue reading