Washington Maritime Injury Lawyer Blog

Fishing Boat Accidents Injure One and Claim Life of Another

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:15:10 -0800

March was not a good month for workers on fishing boats. One worker, Andrew “Drew” Fotu, 25, from Seattle was a crew member on the F/V Alaska Juris was struck in the head by a snapped cable on March 1, 2012. The blow to the head was so severe that he immediately began bleeding from his mouth and exhibited life threatening vital signs. Coast Guard helicopters were summoned and a dropped rescue swimmer boarded the fishing boat only to determine that Fotu had already passed away. His body was taken to Unalaska. At the time of the accident the 255-foot trawler Alaska Juris, owned by the Seattle based Fishing Company of Alaska, was fishing 225 miles southwest of Dutch Harbor. The same company was the owner of the Alaska Ranger, which lost five of its 47 man crew when it sank in 2008.

Then on Monday, March 5, 2012 at around 9:30 a.m., another snapped cable struck another crew member in the head on the F/V Alaska Ocean. The Worker was Franz Dalquen, 47, and the 376 foot trawler is owned by Glacier Fish Company of Seattle, according to Petty Officer Sean Petty. The blow to Dalquen’s head knocked him unconscious for five minutes or so leaving him extremely disoriented. He was flown to Cold Bay via Coast Guard helicopters and then taken to Anchorage by a LifeMed helicopter for treatment and observation.

Azamara Cruise Ship Drifting off Philippines After Fire Destroys Engines

Mon, 07 May 2012 11:15:27 -0800

Yet another cruise line incident in this young year. Recently, an Azamara Club Cruises ship named the Azamara Quest was reportedly drifting listlessly in the waters south of the Phillipines, after fire broke out disabling its engines. The Philippine coast guard indicated that five crew members received injuries from smoke inhalation, with one more seriously injured and taken to the hospital for care and observation. A spokesperson for the cruise line issued a statement that there were no other injuries to the 1,000 people onboard including 590 passengers and 411 crew members. Coast guard spokesman, Lt. Commander Algier Ricafrente, said the ship caught fire a day after leaving Manila for Snadakan, Malaysia and the blaze was soon extinguished. The engines were disabled and engineers rushed to restore power to one engine to re-establish air conditioning, running water, plumbing, refrigeration, food preparation and other necessities. Originally, the cruise was supposed to be a 17 day cruise from Hong Kong to Singapore arriving on April 12, 2012, with stops in Manila, Sandakan and Indonesia. The remainder of the trip was canceled.

Azamara Club Cruises is a part of Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited, which has watched bookings plunge, along with the world’s largest cruise line and competitor Carnival Corporation, following a series of highly publicized accidents in 2012. The first being the sinking of Carnival’s Costa Concordia after it ran aground off the coast of Italy in January, killing 32 people. This tragic event was followed only a month later by another ship owned and operated by a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation, Costa Crociere, SpA. The Costa Allegra caught fire disabling its engines and without any power for the necessities for three days as it helplessly drifted in the Indian Ocean, an area inhabited and prowled by pirates. Costa began as an Italian family firm that carried passengers as far back as 1947 to become Europe’s top cruise operator, which was bought by Carnival Corporation in 2000. However, it has been plagued with a history of accidents, ineffective equipment, operator error and scandal.

Debris from Japan's 2011 Tsunami Expected to Land in North America Soon

Wed, 02 May 2012 12:12:44 -0800

Debris from the 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami that occurred near Sendai, Japan more than one year ago is finally making its way to the Pacific Northwest. The first piece of debris is expected to land on the West Coast within the next two months. Officials anticipate a Japanese fishing boat floating approximately 120 nautical miles off of the coast will make landfall in British Columbia soon. It is estimated up to two million tons of tsunami debris is still floating in the Pacific Ocean and anywhere between one and five percent is expected to land along the North American coastline.

Although it is unclear exactly what sort of wreckage is headed to North America, the tsunami debris headed for the West Coast may include boats, appliances, fishing nets, lumber, and even Japanese homes. According to experts, debris from the disaster was previously not expected to reach the United States and Canada until at least March 2013. Ocean currents, however, have spread the debris out along more than 3,000 miles and the trajectory is no longer clear. In September 2011, several appliances were spotted floating in the ocean near Hawaii.

Senator Maria Cantwell has stated the debris has the potential to cause major damage to the State of Washington’s fragile coastal ecosystem. She believes the United States government should prepare a plan for a coordinated regional response to the wreckage.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is currently leading the effort to collect data and assess the risks posed by the debris to coastal communities. NOAA has asked ships operating in the Pacific Ocean to assist the agency in gathering tsunami debris data. The agency has also requested that all vessels operating in the area submit photos and observations related to floating debris. Reports stating no wreckage was observed are also welcome.

According to Ruth Yender, a tsunami debris coordinator at NOAA, it is unlikely the Japanese tsunami debris will pose a radiation concern because the floating wreckage originated along Japan’s northeastern coastline and the nation's Fukushima power plant did not melt down until after the tsunami washed most of the debris out to sea. Some experts believe fishing-related tsunami debris may have a detrimental effect on wildlife living along the West Coast of North America.

It is nearly impossible to list the wide variety of potential threats seamen may encounter while on board a ship or other vessel. Crewmembers who are hurt at sea are protected by a different body of law than employees who are injured on land. If you or a loved one was injured or killed while working offshore, or if you believe you have another maritime personal injury claim, it is a good idea to contact a qualified maritime lawyer as soon as possible after the incident.

BP Settles Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Claims for Estimated $7.8 Billion

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:48:27 -0800

On the eve of trial, British Petroleum (BP) reached a proposed settlement with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Plaintiff’s Steering Committee. The estimated $7.8 billion settlement is intended to resolve most of the economic and medical claims that resulted from the 2010 oil spill disaster. The settlement will be paid out of the $20 billion trust fund established immediately following the explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately $2.3 billion in settlement funds will be used to fulfill economic claims from individuals associated with the seafood industry.

According to BP, the company has spent roughly $22 billion on the oil spill. Government entities, businesses and individuals reportedly received approximately $8.1 billion from the company. BP’s operational response to the disaster is said to have cost the company at least $14 billion. BP also claims it has paid about $6.1 billion for more than 220,000 individual claims through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

The settlement agreement does not address United States federal agency, state, or local government claims against BP. Funds remaining in the trust fund will also be used to compensate state and local governments as well as pay for natural resource damages, judgments, and other settlements. Any remaining liabilities will purportedly be paid directly by BP.

In addition to the medical and economic damages settlement, BP will also assign the company’s claims against Transocean and Halliburton to the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee. Additionally, the proposed settlement may be terminated by either BP or the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee if the parties cannot execute a written agreement within 45 days. Any written agreement would also require approval from the New Orleans federal court before which the multi-district litigation is pending. Potential claimants would be provided with an opportunity to opt out of the class.

If an oil spill like this occurred in the Pacific Northwest, it would have a dramatic impact on the area as thousands of coastal residents could potentially experience medical and economic injuries. In 1989, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and British Columbia entered into a Memorandum of Cooperation following two devastating oil spills in the area. In 2001, the Memorandum was revised to include the State of Hawaii. The Memorandum set up a task force to implement regional initiatives designed to prevent and prepare for another hazardous oil spill.

Alaska Marine Highway System Claims Fast Ferries Have Defective Engines-AMHS v. Derecktor and MTU Friedrichshafen

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:16:01 -0800

Moving vessels Fairweather and Chenega are Alaska Marine Highway System’s (AMHS) first “fast” ferries. They are 235-foot long aluminum-hulled catamarans with standard service speeds of 32 knots. These ferries carry up to 250 passengers and 36 vehicles at a time. Their interior spaces have a combination of reclining airline-style seats, tables, video games, and full service snack bars. The Juneau-based Fairweather and the Cordova-based Chenega shuttle passengers through Alaska’s frigid waters. Both vessels were delivered as part of a $68 million contract with Robert Derecktor, the east coast shipyard that built the ferries, and MTU Friedrichshafen, the German manufacturer of the engines. Now, AMHS is suing Derecktor and MTU for breach of contract, warranty, and service obligations. Claiming both ferries have defective engines, AMHS asked the Alaska Legislature for $22 million, which would replace the engine of only one ship.

In March of last year, AMHS filed suit against the ferries’ builder and engine manufacturer, alleging the vessels had flawed engines. Ferry officials claim there are defects in the engine blocks, cylinder liners, gear reduction units, and other vessel components. They say the extensive engine damage was “inherent” in their poor design. MTU has denied the allegations and Derecktor filed a counter-claim, contending AMHS improperly refused to release the warranty bond on Chenega and still owes over $820,000 in contract retentions and repair work. Parties on both sides are setting production deadlines for discovery and AMHS is actively seeking proposals for legal counsel to immediately begin assisting the Attorney General in preparing for trial. The 21-day trial, venued in Juneau Superior Court, is scheduled to begin on September 10, 2012.

A “latent defect,” as alleged in this case, has a different meaning in maritime law. Unlike in common law, a latent defect in marine vessels is an “unknown defect not discoverable by reasonable and prudent inspection.” Marine insurance policies often provide coverage for loss and damage caused to the vessel as a result of a latent defect. Latent defects include faulty material and faulty workmanship, and damage caused by faulty design. Here, AMHS alleges that patent defects in the Fairweather and Chenega’s engine blocks were not discoverable by reasonable inspection. Even if the defect has not yet manifested itself, Direcktor and MTU can still be held liable for faulty material or components that “eventually become apparent as time goes on and parts begin to fail.” This may apply to the Chenega because it was built after the Fairweather and has experienced fewer engine problems.

The Fairweather has recently undergone short-term engine repairs in Ketchikan while the Chenega operates in Prince William Sound. The engines on both vessels started showing signs of excessive wear that could eventually stop them from sailing in a few years. State officials previously sought a preliminary injunction forcing the builders to provide replacement engines, but the judge has not yet ruled on the motion. Trial has also been postponed in hopes that the parties can reach a negotiated settlement in this case.

Tragic Boat Fire in Bellingham

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:48:19 -0800

In Bellingham, efforts have begun to recover the bodies of two people who are believed to have died in a massive fire that struck Squalicum Harbor late last week.

Husband and wife Jim Langei, 43, and Sterling Taylor, 33, were living on their boat and have been missing since it was burned in an early-morning fire Friday, March 30.

The fire destroyed an estimated 10 large boats moored in boathouses at Gate 3, G Dock East, near Bellingham Yacht Club.

A crane is being brought in by barge to pull the victims and fire debris out of the water, said Port of Bellingham spokeswoman Carolyn Casey. The barge hadn't been able to make it into the harbor because of windy conditions.

Once the recovery starts, Casey said, the first priority is recovering the bodies of Langei and Taylor.

"Then they'll be methodically removing everything and treating everything as evidence," Casey said.

The removal of everything from the water is expected to take more than five days, and an estimate of the extent and cost of the fire damage won't be known until that's done. As items are taken out of the fire zone, they will be brought to a secure location where police and fire officials can investigate them.

The maritime personal injury lawyers at Anderson, Connell & Carey have handled hundreds of marine casualty cases. We provide initial consultations without charge. For legal assistance, call 360-671-6711 in Bellingham, or toll free 1-800-BOATLAW(262-8529).

Injured Alaskan Crewman Defeats Owner’s Limited Liability Claim-In the Matter of the Complaint of Leo, LLC et al. v. Flora

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:55:08 -0800

Under maritime law, vessel owners facing liability for an injured crewman can petition the court to limit their liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight. They make the request pursuant to the Limitation of Shipowner’s Liability Act (Act), 46 U.S.C. §30501. In order to limit its liability, the ship owner must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, the negligent acts or unseaworthy conditions that caused the crewman’s injury were not within their privity or knowledge. The owners of a fish tender in Alaska tried to limit their liability after a fisherman was injured by a broken crane hook. A federal court in Washington dismissed the owner’s petition.

Matthew Flora, 35, worked as a seaman on moving vessel LEO, which was owned by Coastal Villages Seafoods, LLC and other owners (petitioners). LEO is an ex-U.S. military landing and recovery craft modified to include two “knuckle” cranes installed in May 2007. The crane hooks were designed to have safety latches to keep heavy loads on the crane hook. LEO’s port side crane hook did not have a safety latch.

On June 12, 2009, LEO was being used as a fish tender vessel off the western coast of Alaska. On the first day of the voyage, within 3 miles of Alaska’s shore, LEO’s crew lowered the crane, with a brailer and scale, to a halibut catcher vessel, which loaded the fish to “lift” back to LEO. LEO’s crew would then ice the fish in totes before transporting them to shore for processing. As LEO’s crew loaded the halibut onto the vessel, the brailer and scale popped out of the crane hook. The scale struck Flora, who suffered a fractured skull and permanent brain injury. Flora sued petitioners under the Jones Act, claiming their negligence caused his injuries. Petitioners requested to limit their liability under the Act.

In this case, Flora sustained his burden of proving negligence. The petitioners, however, could not limit their liability because they knew of LEO’s unseaworthiness and were in privity with the vessel’s negligent manager. LEO was not seaworthy because its crane hook, without a safety clasp, was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose. LEO’s captain admitted he knew the crane lacked a safety latch when the vessel sailed from Seward, Alaska. The vessel manager likewise knew the hook was defective, but never took effective measures to ensure the hook was repaired. His actions and omissions constitute negligence and were the cause of Flora’s injuries. Petitioner’s knowledge of LEO’s unseaworthy condition and their negligent failure to remedy the defective equipment undermines their claim that they lacked “privity or knowledge” of the cause of Flora’s injury. Accordingly, the ship owners could not limit their liability under the Act. Their petition for limitation of liability was dismissed with prejudice.

Ship Owner Cannot Limit Liability Where Passenger Slips on Ramp-MLC Fishing, Inc. v. Velez

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:20:42 -0800

An appellate court recently confirmed a legal rule prohibiting vessel owners from limiting their liability by invoking federal court jurisdiction. Passengers who are injured en route to a vessel are entitled to fair compensation for their injuries, even if the incident did not occur “on or over navigable waters.”

MLC Fishing, Inc. (MLC) owns the fishing vessel “Capt. Mike,” which was docked at Capt. Mike’s Marina in Howard Beach, Queens. Julio Velez wanted to go fishing as a passenger aboard Capt. Mike. Velez slipped and fell on a ramp leading from the marina to a floating dock that passengers needed to traverse to board the vessel. Velez sued MLC for injuries sustained from the fall. MLC sought to limit its liability pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act (Act), 46 U.S.C. §30501. The district court dismissed MLC’s complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. MLC appealed, alleging the Act provided an independent basis of jurisdiction for petitions that arose from incidents that did not occur on navigable waters. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Congress grants federal district courts jurisdiction over “any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331(1). A tort action lies within the federal district court’s admiralty jurisdiction if it satisfies both prongs of a two-part test. First, the alleged tort must have occurred on or over “navigable waters.” Second, there must be a substantial nexus between the activity giving rise to the incident and traditional maritime activity. In other words, the incident must have had a “potentially disruptive influence” on maritime commerce.

Here, Velez fell on a ramp connected to the marina. Like a pier or dock, this ramp is considered an “extension of land” for purposes of determining admiralty jurisdiction. In this case, neither the ramp nor the floating dock leading to Capt. Mike possessed the characteristics associated with maritime objects; both were extensions of land. Thus, Velez’s injury did not occur on or over navigable waters. As such, MLC could not satisfy the locality prong of two-part test to invoke admiralty jurisdiction.

Further, the Act does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over this action. The Act limits the liability of a vessel owner to the value of the vessel and pending freight in cases of loss, damage, or injury. Although the Supreme Court has declined to determine whether the Act provides an independent basis for jurisdiction, every court of appeals that has ruled on the issue has concluded it does not. Here, the district court did not address the issue, but the appellate court clarified that it would “join [its] sister Circuits” in holding the Act did not confer admiralty jurisdiction in cases where the alleged incident did not occur on or over navigable waters.

In reaching this conclusion, the court looked to the Act’s relevant statutory language and found it did not grant subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, it was only intended to grant vessel owners a private right of action to limit their liability assuming the court otherwise had jurisdiction. If courts interpreted the Act to grant cover controversies that did not occur on navigable waters, this would exceed the scope of the constitutional grant of admiralty jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed MLC’s petition to limit its liability for want of jurisdiction.

COSTA CONCORDIA Passenger Claims

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:00:02 -0800

An article in the Miami Herald discussed lawsuits being instituted in behalf of passengers aboard the COSTA CONCORDIA. Two New York lawfirms claim to be representing "hundreds" of passengers.

The shipowner has offerred 11,000 euros, or about $14,500, to settle claims by the 3,206 passengers who were not physically injured. It has been noted that the settlements would total about $46 million, or 12 days of projected Carnival Cruise profits for 2012.

The Miami Herald article reports that maritime plaintiff lawyers in Miami and Los Angeles have valued the claims in the range of $60,000 to $100,000.

Both the shipowner and the lawyers treat the claims as if there were coupons. They are not. Claims for psychological damages suffered by passengers are based upon the experience of the individual person and the consequences in terms of emotional pain and suffering.

It is likely many passengers will suffer the effects of post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). The nature and extent of this condition cannot be immediately known. No passenger should consider final settlement of his or her claim unless and until the emotional effects, which may be latent, are evaluated by a professional.

PTSD is a well established medical condition. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revisions (DSM–IV-TR) states:

The essential feature of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or learning about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close associate (Criterion A1). The person's response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror (or in children, the response must involve disorganized or agitated behavior) (Criterion A2). The characteristic symptoms resulting from the exposure to the extreme trauma include persistent reexperiencing of the traumatic event (Criterion B), persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (Criterion C), and persistent symptoms of increased arousal (Criterion D). The full symptom picture must be present for more than 1 month (Criterion E), and the disturbance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion F). DSM–IV-TR, p.463. [Emphasis supplied.]

The manual goes on to discuss the various symptoms of PTSD, including flashbacks, avoidance, sense of foreshortened future, anxiety, sleeplessness, recurrent nightmares, outbursts of anger, as well as painful guilt feelings about surviving when others did not survive.

Symptoms of PTSD usually begin within the first three months after the trauma, although there may be a delay of months, or even years, before symptoms appear. DSM–IV-TR, p.466.

According to the National Center for PTSD, an agency of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, symptoms of PTSD may come and go over many years. About half (40% - 60%) of people who develop PTSD get better at some time. But about one out of three people who develop PTSD will always have symptoms.

As stated by the National Center for PTSD:

Symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be terrifying. They may disrupt your life and make it hard to continue with your daily activities. It may be hard just to get through the day.

It is to be hoped that only a small percentage of the passengers who survived the wreck of the COSTA CONCORDIA will suffer from full-blown PTSD. But it would be naive for anyone who survived the ordeal to discount the possibility of emotional consequences.

The lawfirm of Anderson, Connell & Carey has represented survivors of shipwrecks who have suffered psychological effects and have been compensated accordingly. In one case, the recovery for PTSD exceeded $1,000,000. In most cases, the effects are not so profound as to warrant an award of that magnitude, but the condition can be serious and the suffering profound.

Dutch Harbor Clinic Denies T.V. Access

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:32:31 -0800

The Iliuliuk Family and Health Services clinic in Dutch Harbor has been caring for injured fishermen for decades. It is a beacon of compassion and competence in the North Pacific. It's commitment to professionalism is reflected in its decision not to permit a T.V. show to invade the privacy of the clinic.

The Deadliest Catch's access to scenes of injured fishermen inside the clinic has been cut off. The board of directors of the clinic unanimously declined permission to the production company to film in the building.

Before the vote was taken, clinic health care providers were asked by board chair Michelle Callaham how they felt about being rock stars and TV stars on the show that airs on the Discovery Channel featuring Bering Sea crab boats.

None spoke in favor.

Forum Selection -- A Thumb on Carnival's Side of the Scale of Justice

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:29:42 -0800

As noted in our last blog post, in the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court case of Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, a "choice of forum" clause in a cruise ship ticket was upheld.

In dissent, Mr. Justice John Paul Stevens explained the purpose of choice of forum clauses like the one contained in the COSTA CONCORDIA tickets:

"Clauses limiting a carrier's liability or weakening the passenger's right to recover for the negligence of the carrier's employees come in a variety of forms. Complete exemptions from liability for negligence or limitations on the amount of the potential damage recovery, requirements that notice of claims be filed within an unreasonably short period of time, provisions mandating a choice of law that is favorable to the defendant in negligence cases, and forum-selection clauses are all similarly designed to put a thumb on the carrier's side of the scale of justice."

In the Shute case, the plaintiff was a lady from Arlington, Washington. She and her husband
purchased tickets through a local travel agent. She was injured aboard the Carnival ship TROPICALE, enroute from Los Angeles to Puerta Vallarta, Mexico. The ticket called for suit in Florida.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, relying on it's previous opinion in Bremen v. Zapata Offshore (1972). That case involved a clause in a contract for towage of an oil rig from Louisiana to a location in the Adriatic Sea, calling for litigation in London. To those of us representing injured passengers, it seemed a stretch to extend the Bremen doctrine to require a lady in Arlington to travel to Florida to seek redress for injury.

Justice Stevens would have none of it. Joined by Justice Marshall, he said that the clause in question was "the product of disparate bargaining power between the carrier and the passenger" which "undermine[d] the strong public interest in deterring negligent conduct."

If the courts will not permit suit against Carnival in this country, the Congress should act to rectify the injustice resulting from Carnival v. Shute and its progeny.

Forum Selection -- A Way to Obstruct COSTA CONCORDIA Claims

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:19:31 -0800

Although the parent company of the owner of the stricken Costa Concordia is based in Miami, passengers who want to file a lawsuit in U.S. courts over the cruise ship disaster will encounter obstacles in the tickets issued by the cruise line.

That's because of fine print on the tickets purchased and signed by the 3,000-plus passengers before the ship capsized Jan. 13 off the coast of Italy, killing at least 16 and leaving another 16 missing. The ticket contract includes what's known as a "choice of forum" clause stating that lawsuits must be filed in Italy.

In a 1991 case of Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a provision in a cruise ticket was enforceable. The result has been that many claims by injured cruise ship passengers have been deterred by the expense of filing a lawsuit in a foreign court.

For a Costa cruise that touches any part of the U.S., the clauses say lawsuits should be filed in federal court in South Florida. Same for Carnival Cruises – which owns Costa – and many other major cruise lines. But for cruises such as the Concordia that involve only foreign travel, the Costa ticket says lawsuits must be brought in Genoa, Italy where much of the subsidiary's operations are based.

The clauses in the cruise industry are not as common in other forms of travel. Lawsuits against airlines, for example, can be brought virtually anyplace they do business for domestic flights; for international flights, lawyers can generally sue in the airline's home location or where the flight departed, among other venues.

Last August, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a forum clause in a case involving Regent Seven Seas Cruises Inc. A California woman, Nina Seung, fell and broke her leg aboard a cruise ship sailing from Tahiti, then tried to sue in Fort Lauderdale federal court. Her ticket required foreign cruise lawsuits to be filed in Paris, and the appeals court rejected her challenge.

Seung, who was 74 at the time of her accident, said in court papers that the clause essentially barred the door for her.

"I do not have any savings of note right now, I am going further and further into debt each month and because I cannot work, I don't see how I can ever afford this," she said in an affidavit. "So if I am forced to go to Paris, France, I just will not be able to bring my claim."

When the Shute case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers representing injured passengers were discouraged. It was obvious that passengers do not meaningfully agree to the fine print on the back of tickets issued by the cruise line. This is a classic "contract of adhesion," in which one party has never had any choice but to accept the terms, no matter how unconscionable.

Another Shipwreck! Packed Ferry Sinks

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:54:40 -0800

Rescuers pulled more than 200 survivors from the ocean on Thursday (February 2) as the search for more passengers from a packed ferry that sank off the coast of Papua New Guinea was set to extend into Friday, rescue officials said.

The fate of scores of others aboard the ferry, the MV Rabaul Queen, was unknown.

Rescue agencies estimated that the MV Rabaul Queen had been carrying 300 to 350 people when it sank early Thursday about 10 miles off the northern coast of Papua New Guinea. Nearby commercial ships rescued 238 people from the sea, said Capt. Nurur Rahman, the rescue coordinator for Papua New Guinea’s National Maritime Safety Authority.

The ferry sank between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. local time, Captain Rahman said, as it was traveling from Kimbe on the island of New Britain to the town of Lae on the main island. The ferry sent a distress signal that was received in Australia and relayed to the maritime authority in Papua New Guinea.

The MV Rabaul Queen has a capacity of 300 passengers, but Captain Rahman said he did not know how many were aboard. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority said in its online updates that as many as 350 people were believed to be aboard the ferry.

The cause of the accident was not known, Captain Rahman said.

“Right now, we’re making all efforts to fast-track rescue operations while the sun is still up,” he said.

Whether rescue operations would continue through the night remained unclear. Captain Rahman said the search would likely be suspended until dawn Friday because of rough weather, The Associated Press reported. But the Australian maritime agency said Thursday night that search ships “remained in the area.”

Strong northwesterly winds and sea swells of up to 5 meters, or about 16 feet, were reported by ships at the scene of the sinking, the Australian maritime agency said.

Prime Minister Peter O’Neill of Papua New Guinea said the authorities would investigate the cause of the sinking, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Earlier on Thursday, Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia, whose country coordinates maritime rescue operations with Papua New Guinea, warned of a heavy loss of life. Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, Ms. Gillard described the sinking as a “major tragedy.” Australia sent an airplane to join at least six ships and three helicopters Papua New Guinea had deployed to find survivors.

“Given the likely very high loss of life here, I think when this news comes to the attention of Australians around the country they will be thinking about the people of P.N.G. as they respond to this tragedy,” Ms. Gillard said, The A.P. reported.

Ferries are commonly used for travel around the archipelago nation of seven million people. While rich in natural resources, Papua New Guinea remains relatively poor, beset by the high cost of developing infrastructure and continuing political instability.

Papua New Guinea has a history of political violence, including a decade-long civil war involving the mineral-rich island of Bougainville. Last month an attempted coup against Mr. O’Neill failed.

Source: New York Times

Marina Explosion Seriously Injures Boater

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:27:58 -0800

A boat exploded last night at the John Wayne Marina in Sequim, Washington, seriously injuring a man on board.

The 40-foot boat blew up about 5:45 last night at the "C" dock in the marina.

Fire District Three spokesman Patrick Young says the explosion was so large, boats within 75 yards were also damaged. One couple on a boat two slips away was knocked down due to the force. An unidentified 78-year-old man was in the hull of the boat which exploded, covered in debris. He was removed from the water and taken to Olympic Medical Center with serious burns.

Fire and Coast Guard crews spent the night containing spilled fuel and oil that came after the boat sank.

The cause of the explosion is still under investigation.

Black Sea Shipwreck

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:04:34 -0800

A dry cargo ship sank off the Black Sea coast of Turkey Tuesday and eight members of the 11-strong Polish crew were missing, Turkish media said.

The Cambodian-registered dry cargo ship Vera was sailing from Russia to the Turkish Aegean port of Aliaga and sank in a storm one mile off the coast of the Black Sea port of Zonguldak, CNN Turk said.

Three members of the crew were saved and taken to hospital, the television channel said, but coast guards and police were still searching for the eight others.

Turkey has been hit by extreme weather and snow storms over the past week. There were gale warnings Tuesday for parts of the Marmara, Black Sea and Aegean, a shipping agent said.

Source: Reuters