Tote CYA

I seems Tote is covering its ass in court with some archaic law from the 1860’s. It only proves there is no justice here in America. I’m sure that judge received a plain white bulging envelope to rule in favor of Tote against liability claims. I’m sure the server with the “saved email” telling the captain sail into the hurricane has been “wiped clean”.

[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;172924]I seems Tote is covering its ass in court with some archaic law from the 1860’s. It only proves there is no justice here in America. I’m sure that judge received a plain white bulging envelope to rule in favor of Tote against liability claims. I’m sure the server with the “saved email” telling the captain sail into the hurricane has been “wiped clean”.[/QUOTE]

This is utter bullshit.

[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;172924]I seems Tote is covering its ass in court with some archaic law from the 1860’s. It only proves there is no justice here in America. I’m sure that judge received a plain white bulging envelope to rule in favor of Tote against liability claims. I’m sure the server with the “saved email” telling the captain sail into the hurricane has been “wiped clean”.[/QUOTE]

I doubt anyone at the office is stupid enough to put anything like that into writing.

Also, what archaic law are you talking about. (By the way, a law being old doesn’t invalidate its lawfulness in any way. If you don’t like it, change it.)

The limited liability act of 1851

[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;172924]I seems Tote is covering its ass in court with some archaic law from the 1860’s. It only proves there is no justice here in America. I’m sure that judge received a plain white bulging envelope to rule in favor of Tote against liability claims. I’m sure the server with the “saved email” telling the captain sail into the hurricane has been “wiped clean”.[/QUOTE]

What, like with a cloth?

The families are already fighting this. They will bump it to a higher court and it will be overturned. This is just the first round. It will be years before this is settled. Tote is going to do their best to cover their ASSets and try to pin this entirely on the captain.

[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;172951]What, like with a cloth?[/QUOTE]

more like a flamethrower

[QUOTE=tugsailor;172929]This is utter bullshit.[/QUOTE]

welcome to America where any large enough corporation can buy all that they might desire…judges, politicians, regulators. Doesn’t matter who, justice is susceptible to the unremitting forces of unchecked capitalism

[QUOTE=c.captain;172978]welcome to America where any large enough corporation can buy all that they might desire…judges, politicians, regulators. Doesn’t matter who, justice is susceptible to the unremitting forces of unchecked capitalism[/QUOTE]

No, not capitalism but fascism

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
Benito Mussolini

[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;172924]It only proves there is no justice here in America. [/QUOTE]

It only illustrates that we have the best justice money can buy.

But, until we know everything possible about what happened and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to build the scaffold and coffins for TOTE or anyone else. There is no justice in an internet kangaroo court either.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;172974]The families are already fighting this. They will bump it to a higher court and it will be overturned. This is just the first round. It will be years before this is settled. Tote is going to do their best to cover their ASSets and try to pin this entirely on the captain.[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting the current Supreme Court would be more sympathetic to individual plaintiffs vice defendant corporations (“corporations are people, my friend…”)?

This notwithstanding, There’s not much a Court can do to invalidate or “overturn” shipowber’s limitation of liability other than find it not applicable or unconstitutional. It’s in statute, see 46 United States Code Chapter 305. Congress has to change it.

[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;172924]I seems Tote is covering its ass in court with some archaic law from the 1860’s. It only proves there is no justice here in America. I’m sure that judge received a plain white bulging envelope to rule in favor of Tote against liability claims. I’m sure the server with the “saved email” telling the captain sail into the hurricane has been “wiped clean”.[/QUOTE]

The interesting thing about this limited liability protection, It only applies to legal, legitimate operations. When (and if unfortunately) the condition of the vessel can be proven to be substandard and below ‘normal sea keeping ability’ then the company can be found in violation of more than liability. Once the veil of corporate malfeasance can be pierced… Katy bar the door. My prognosis: This will be exactly like the Ekof, Scandia/NorthCape incident regarding vessel fitness and maintenance.

good stuff here:

http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/Whit.html

Reminds me of the relatively new decision (2011) that came out in favour of of large wireless companies. Just so they can protect themselves from liability. Corporations are people. Evil people.

Hmmmmm…well my understanding on Jones Act claims, is you have three years to file or its null and void. Now, with them filing that move, which is typical it seems with some companies to screw the little guy, tells me that your just a number to companies. First of the families will be suing the insurance company, not the company as a whole. Plus, limiting their liability to 15 million, hahaha, right…33 lives gone and each family of 33 to divide up 15 million after lawyer fees!!! I don’t see how they can maneuver out of liability of unseaworthy claims that will be the main basis of the suits. THE Jones Act is designed to protect mariners for just this scenario…which is why many companies want the Jones Act changed.

[QUOTE=UnlimitedHPengineer;173011]Hmmmmm…well my understanding on Jones Act claims, is you have three years to file or its null and void. Now, with them filing that move, which is typical it seems with some companies to screw the little guy, tells me that your just a number to companies. First of the families will be suing the insurance company, not the company as a whole. Plus, limiting their liability to 15 million, hahaha, right…33 lives gone and each family of 33 to divide up 15 million after lawyer fees!!! I don’t see how they can maneuver out of liability of unseaworthy claims that will be the main basis of the suits. THE Jones Act is designed to protect mariners for just this scenario…which is why many companies want the Jones Act changed.[/QUOTE]

I believe that’s all liability, not just against the families. That also includes claims for lost cargo, etc.

On top of that, I believe either the Jones Act or some other old law limits claims from families to some obscenely low number anyway so they have no hope of getting millions for each crew member.

[QUOTE=UnlimitedHPengineer;173011]…the Jones Act is designed to protect mariners for just this scenario…which is why many companies want the Jones Act changed.[/QUOTE]
And replace it with what, worker’s comp? You could fill a library with cases of plaintiffs trying to be considered Jones Act seamen. The Jones Act is widely recognized as being far more favorable to a plaintiff than worker’s comp.

[QUOTE=cappy208;172994]This will be exactly like the Ekof, Scandia/NorthCape incident regarding vessel fitness and maintenance.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not. A tank vessel’s liability limitations for pollution related damages are governed by different law, e.g. OPA 90. See e.g. 33 United States Code Chapter 40.

[QUOTE=UnlimitedHPengineer;173011]…I don’t see how they can maneuver out of liability of unseaworthy claims[/QUOTE]

Unseaworthiness in Admiralty law isn’t what one might think it is from the name alone. See e.g. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer.

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173014]…On top of that, I believe either the Jones Act or some other old law limits claims from families to some obscenely low number anyway so they have no hope of getting millions for each crew member.[/QUOTE]

It’s not a cap on the sum that can be recovered per se, it limits the types of damages that can be recovered. E.g. punitive damages and loss of future earnings cannot be recovered. See e.g. Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.

Wasn’t quite what I meant. The corporation was found negligent for ‘overseeing’ a faulty substandard M&R program and the top two or three were sentenced to time for their role in oversight lapse. Of course none here have the results of an investigation. But anecdotal comments from around the industry indicate somethings underfoot. There’s petroleum aboard El Faro. Same laws would apply I would think.

I’m hoping something different will come as a result of this incident. Complete hull inspections and entire hull audio gauging on vessels over XX yes old requirements for one.

The Jones Act and General Maritime Law claims of an injured seaman can somestimes result in very substantial sums.

By contrast, the maritime law claims of a dead seaman have fairly modest value. Claims for pain and suffering are not allowed.

In the El Faro case, there will be no claims for present and future medicals. The claims will be primarily economic damages for loss of support to dependents. The value of these claims is based upon the future earning potential of the seaman. If there are no dependents, then there is little value to a maritime death claim. Courts are often not very generous in Seaman’s death cases. I will be surprised if the officer’s families get over $1 million, and if the unlicensed ratings get over $500,000. I would not be surprised if they got a lot less.

The seamen’s claims in the El Faro case, are NOT large enough to be a threat to TOTE’s continuing economic viability. Besides, insurance will be providing TOTE’s defense and paying any successful claims.

TOTE will certainly assert its rights in this case, such as under the Limitation of Liability Act, but TOTE has no incentive to do anything illegal or unethical, or attempt any sort of cover up.

I was on a Waterman ship and the bosn was killed dropping the anchor. (one of the links had fallen apart in the chain locker unbeknownst to anyone and when they dropped the anchor the bosn was hit by the chain whipping around the wildcat head when it was freewheeling out). I heard his widow got 1.3 mil and he had 2 young kids. It seemed like a fair claim stating his future earnings, etc.