Cruise company sued for ignoring stranded fishermen

Crisscrosser

A Panamanian man who watched his two friends die while surviving at sea for 28 days in their small disabled boat is suing a US cruise line because one of its ships failed to help.

Lawyer Edna Ramos says the lawsuit alleging negligence by Prince Cruise Lines was filed in a Florida state court on behalf of Adrian Vazquez.

The 18-year-old Vazquez and companions Fernando Osorio, 16, and Elvis Oropeza, 31, set off for a night of fishing on February 24 from Rio Hato, a small fishing and farming town on the Pacific coast of Panama that was once the site of a US Army base guarding the Panama Canal. The boat's motor broke down on the way back and the men drifted at sea for 16 days before seeing a cruise ship approach on March 10.

Vazquez has said the men signalled for help, but the ship did not stop.

Princess Cruises has said passengers never told the ship's captain they saw a boat.

Osorio and Oropeza died later. Vazquez was rescued on March 22 near Ecuador's Galapagos Islands, more than 965 kilometres from where they had set out.

Ramos said the lawsuit included testimony from two cruise ship passengers who said they saw the disabled boat and reported it to a cruise representative on the Star Princess liner.

Passenger Jeff Gilligan, a birdwatcher from Portland, Oregon, has told journalists that he was among the first people to notice the small boat.

Another birdwatcher, Judy Meredith of Bend, Oregon, has also said she saw the small open boat and through her bird-spotting scope could see a man waving what looked like a dark red T-shirt.

Meredith has said that she told a Princess Cruises sales representative what she and Gilligan had seen and that he assured her that he passed the news on to the ship's crew. The two passengers said they put the sales representative on one of the spotting scopes so he could see the small boat for himself.

AP

http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-news/cruise-company-sued-for-ignoring-stranded-fishermen-20120514-1ym8v.html


Whilst I can assure everyone that I'd do everything in my power to assist any visible castaway(s) at sea, I don't think the plaintiff's lawsuit has any merit because the US government hasn't approved the Law of the Sea Treaty and because the cruise company is in international waters.

Won't this be similar to suing the Swedish or Swiss government for all the global military conflicts in the world because they refuse to involve themselves in other countries's affairs?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Crisscrosser wrote: »

http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-news/cruise-company-sued-for-ignoring-stranded-fishermen-20120514-1ym8v.html


Whilst I can assure everyone that I'd do everything in my power to assist any visible castaway(s) at sea, I don't think the plaintiff's lawsuit has any merit because the US government hasn't approved the Law of the Sea Treaty and because the cruise company is in international waters.

Won't this be similar to suing the Swedish or Swiss government for all the global military conflicts in the world because they refuse to involve themselves in other countries's affairs?

The ship is governed by the laes of the country in which it's registered, so if it's registered in America, it will by US law that decides.

A state of anarchy does not exist simply because you are in internatinoal waters.

My name is URL

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Won't this be similar to suing the Swedish or Swiss government for all the global military conflicts in the world because they refuse to involve themselves in other countries's affairs?

No, it's nothing whatsoever like that.

IM0

they obviously thought they were pirates

CruelCoin

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The ship is governed by the laes of the country in which it's registered, so if it's registered in America, it will by US law that decides.

A state of anarchy does not exist simply because you are in internatinoal waters.

The ship itself and all that happens on it is governed by the laws of the resigistered contry, but i wouldn't be so sure that this extends to what happens outside the boat whilst in international waters.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CruelCoin wrote: »

The ship itself and all that happens on it is governed by the laws of the resigistered contry, but i wouldn't be so sure that this extends to what happens outside the boat whilst in international waters.

The decision not to take action was made on the ship, and that's the foundation on which jurisdiction would be decided upon.

Crisscrosser

My name is URL wrote: »

No, it's nothing whatsoever like that.

How is it not?

The cruise company refused to involve itself in the castaways's affairs just as the Swiss and Swedish governments refuse to involve themselves in other countries's affairs.

My name is URL

Crisscrosser wrote: »

How is it not?

The cruise company refused to involve itself in the castaways's affairs just as the Swiss and Swedish governments refuse to involve themselves in other countries's affairs.

You don't really need for it to be explained to you surely? You can't see the difference between an individual filing a civil lawsuit against a private company and blaming the Swiss for all global conflicts? I don't think I've ever witnessed such a giant leap in logic.

Crisscrosser

My name is URL wrote: »

You don't really need for it to be explained to you surely? You can't see the difference between an individual filing a civil lawsuit against a private company and blaming the Swiss for all global conflicts? I don't think I've ever witnessed such a giant leap in logic.

Considering that the Swiss government is not responsible for causing any political conflicts they should never be held responsible for any political conflicts.

On a similar note, considering that the cruise company never caused the fisherman to become castaways they should never be held responsible for rescuing the fisherman. The cruise company could've assisted if they desired but they shouldn't be held responsible for not rescuing anyone regardless of how immoral or cold-hearted it seems.

That's my opinion.

nacimroc

I'm off to hire a rowing boat and be "stranded" on front of the first posh cruiser I find!

The Swiss reference is so far unrelated to this its amusing!

Crisscrosser

nacimroc wrote: »

I'm off to hire a rowing boat and be "stranded" on front of the first posh cruiser I find!

The Swiss reference is so far unrelated to this its amusing!

Fine, I'll just address the topic.

I don't see how the cruise company is responsible for the wellbeing of the castaways if the cruise company never caused the fisherman to become castaways. Didn't the fishermen, who knew the dangers of fishing in the ocean, put themselves in such a situation albeit unintentionally?

The cruise company's captain was simply minding his/her own affairs. If anything, the captain should only be responsible for the affairs of the crew and passengers aboard and himself/herself.

There's certainly nothing wrong with minding one's affairs these days, right?

K-9

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Fine, I'll just address the topic.

I don't see how the cruise company is responsible for the wellbeing of the castaways if the cruise company never caused the fisherman to become castaways. Didn't the fishermen, who knew the dangers of fishing in the ocean, put themselves in such a situation albeit unintentionally?

The cruise company's captain was simply minding his/her own affairs.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that, right?

Ah right, the legal case isn't your problem here, you think the ships crew did nothing wrong. Can't say I agree with you tbh.

My name is URL

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Considering that the Swiss government is not responsible for causing any political conflicts they should never be held responsible for any political conflicts.

On a similar note, considering that the cruise company never caused the fisherman to become castaways they should never be held responsible for rescuing the fisherman. The cruise company could've assisted if they desired but they shouldn't be held responsible for not rescuing anyone regardless of how immoral or cold-hearted it seems.

That's my opinion.

They may not have caused him to become lost at sea, but they did cause him to spend more time there than he needed to. He isn't suing the cruise company for putting him in the situation where he was a castaway, he's suing them for ignoring him and failing to help him, despite them being in a position to do so.

You say yourself in the OP that you'd 'do everything in your power to assist any visible castaway(s) at sea', so why are you seemingly so against the idea of a precedent being set which encourages others to do the same?

Casillas

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Fine, I'll just address the topic.

I don't see how the cruise company is responsible for the wellbeing of the castaways if the cruise company never caused the fisherman to become castaways. Didn't the fishermen, who knew the dangers of fishing in the ocean, put themselves in such a situation albeit unintentionally?

The cruise company's captain was simply minding his/her own affairs. If anything, the captain should only be responsible for the affairs of the crew and passengers aboard and himself/herself.

There's certainly nothing wrong with minding one's affairs these days, right?

It's illegal actually;

Under UN law it is compulsory to help vessels in distress, as long as it would not pose any danger to the ship. The master of the ship is required "to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, insofar as such action may reasonably be expected of him".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/castaway-sues-princess-cruises-over-ship-s-failure-to-help.html

Two men died because of a break of this law, the man has a case and will more than likely win.

This is an international law by the way, nationality doesn't come into it at all.

Edit' there are three international laws;

Currently, there are three international conventions which impose a duty on ships to assist individuals in distress at sea.
The first is the International Maritime Organizations (IMO) regulations found in the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS). The second is the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCOLOS). The third is the International Convention of Salvage (1989) (“Salvage Convention”). All three conventions essentially state that a captain of a ship once notified of persons in distress shall proceed with all speed to their assistance.

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/04/articles/rescue-1/duty-of-cruise-lines-to-assist-persons-in-distress-moral-legal-practical-considerations-on-the-high-seas/

Crisscrosser

My name is URL wrote: »

You say yourself in the OP that you'd 'do everything in your power to assist any visible castaway(s) at sea', so why are you seemingly so against the idea of a precedent being set which encourages others to do the same?

I'm against forcing such persons to assist others if such persons are not responsible for causing other people's problem(s).

Whilst I personally don't embrace such a thing, I personally believe that people should have the choice to decide whether they should or should not assist as a matter of good will.

BornToKill

I find it pretty sad that the two who lost their lives could have been rescued and instead endured long and painful deaths. A genuine tragedy.

Crisscrosser

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right, the legal case isn't your problem here, you think the ships crew did nothing wrong. Can't say I agree with you tbh.

I honestly don't.

Whilst it may be immoral and cold-hearted not to assist an unknown person(s) in need of assistance, I don't believe that people should be held responsible for problems they did not cause.

In this case, the captain did not cause the fisherman to become castaways so why should he/she be responsible for their wellbeing, regardless of whatever laws are in place?

BornToKill wrote: »

I find it pretty sad that the two who lost their lives could have been rescued and instead endured long and painful deaths. A genuine tragedy.

I too find it saddening but I don't believe that the captain should be held responsible, as others have suggested, for not assisting or showing any good will.

True good will must come from within and not be enforced by others who are well-intentioned.

thebigbiffo

Crisscrosser wrote: »

I honestly don't.

Whilst it may be immoral and cold-hearted not to assist an unknown person(s) in need of assistance, I don't believe that people should be held responsible for problems they did not cause.

In this case, the captain did not cause the fisherman to become castaways so why should he/she be responsible for their wellbeing, regardless of whatever laws are in place?





I too find it saddening but I don't believe that the captain should be held responsible, as others have suggested, for not assisting or showing any good will.

True good will must come from within and not be enforced by others who are well-intentioned.

news of 3 people dying of exposure within reach of the ship was given to the crew yet you do not believe they are responsible for their deaths?? of course they are!

(remember that song by Phil Collins 'in the air tonight' - sing along to eminem's Stan).

i hope they win this suit. it was extremely negligent of the crew not to divert course to save these guys, that they were not responsible for their situation is neither here nor there. i wouldn't sit back and watch someone drown, be abused or otherwise be hurt where i had the power to make a difference and there are laws against such behaviour in most countries. hope they win millions - next time some s'hithead officer is told of castaways he'll make damn sure it's properly reported and investigated by the captain.

My name is URL

Crisscrosser wrote: »

I'm against forcing such persons to assist others if such persons are not responsible for causing other people's problem(s).

But why? For what reason should somebody not be required to lend assistance when they are in a position do to so?

Whilst I personally don't embrace such a thing, I personally believe that people should have the choice to decide whether they should or should not assist as a matter of good will.

I completely disagree with that idea. I don't know if you've ever seen that video of a child get run over in China, and have dozens of people subsequently walk by as it slowly died in agony, would you apply the above to situations like that also? People should be expected to help out if they can, and once it's safe for them to do so. Preferably their own morals would dictate it, but failing that, I don't see any real reason why law shouldn't.

Casillas

Crisscrosser wrote: »

I'm against forcing such persons to assist others if such persons are not responsible for causing other people's problem(s).

Whilst I personally don't embrace such a thing, I personally believe that people should have the choice to decide whether they should or should not assist as a matter of good will.

Think about it, in the middle of the ocean, what are the chances of encountering another vessel in time to survive?

This isn't like passing a road-crash where an ambulance can be called. The huge distance to mount a rescue from land based maritime services, is the reason three separate international conventions bind ship captains to investigate a vessel in distress.

K-9

Crisscrosser wrote: »

I honestly don't.

Whilst it may be immoral and cold-hearted not to assist an unknown person(s) in need of assistance, I don't believe that people should be held responsible for problems they did not cause.

In this case, the captain did not cause the fisherman to become castaways so why should he/she be responsible for their wellbeing, regardless of whatever laws are in place?

To run with your logic I assume it a large cruise liner, 1'000's on board. If it sank would it be okay for others boats around it to just carry on, ignoring them?

Capt'n Midnight

Crisscrosser wrote: »

I'm against forcing such persons to assist others if such persons are not responsible for causing other people's problem(s).

Whilst I personally don't embrace such a thing, I personally believe that people should have the choice to decide whether they should or should not assist as a matter of good will.

It's you versus hundreds of years of maritime law.

The sea is a dangerous place.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/countries-paying-teens-rescue-cost-defend-sea-law/?page=all

The fishing vessel that reached her first lost at least three days of work; a commercial ship also sent to her rescue would have added three or four days of travel time to its intended destination.
...
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea was first adopted in 1914 in response to the Titanic disaster. Along with mandating the number of lifeboats and the notification of a ship’s routes, it also dictates that any ship in the area of a distress call will divert to assist that ship.

...n 1997, Australia spent $6 million to rescue British sailor Tony Bullimore and Frenchman Thierry Dubois, who both went missing while competing in a solo yacht race known as the Vendee Globe. Mr. Bullimore survived for several days inside the hull of his overturned yacht, surviving on bits of chocolate and losing two toes to frostbite before being rescued by the Australian Navy just 500 miles from Antarctica.

A few years earlier, Frenchwoman Isabelle Autissier was rescued — twice in two years — at a cost of $5.8 million, causing outrage among Australians who saw their taxes paying for frivolous, selfish pursuits.

Crisscrosser

My name is URL wrote: »

But why? For what reason should somebody not be required to lend assistance when they are in a position do to so?

Because authentic good will is a personal choice NOT a state-enforced mandate intended to make Good Samaritans out of people.

I completely disagree with that idea. I don't know if you've ever seen that video of a child get run over in China, and have dozens of people subsequently walk by as it slowly died in agony, would you apply the above to situations like that also? People should be expected to help out if they can, and once it's safe for them to do so. Preferably their own morals would dictate it, but failing that, I don't see any real reason why law shouldn't.

K-9 wrote: »

To run with your logic I assume it a large cruise liner, 1'000's on board. If it sank would it be okay for others boats around it to just carry on, ignoring them?

As I've mentioned before, I believe that true good will must from within and be not something that is state-enforced.

I wouldn't hesitate to help a injured person(s) in need in either of those situations but I wouldn't go as far as mandating that every person should be a Good Samaritan.

To assume that you can force people to be Good Samaritans deprives people of their free will mind their own affairs and be alone when they desire. I must stress that I don't encourage that type of behavior but the choice of good will should always be a personal decision not the state's decision.

jam_mac_jam

If you see another human being in trouble and you can help them and it will cause you no harm to do so then you should do it. It doesnt matter if it was your fault or not, you help them. Would you leave a dog dying on the street if you walked past them would you not help, I certainly would so I would not see why people are even arguing about this, why would you do it to a human.

If you see somebody at sea and dont help them then you have broken the law.

RichieC

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Because authentic good will is a personal choice NOT a state-enforced mandate intended to make Good Samaritans out of people.





As I've mentioned before, I believe that true good will must from within and be not something that is state-enforced.

I wouldn't hesitate to help a injured person(s) in need in either of those situations but I wouldn't go as far as mandating that every person should be a Good Samaritan.

To assume that you can force people to be Good Samaritans deprives people of their free will mind their own affairs and be alone when they desire. I must stress that I don't encourage that type of behavior but the choice of good will should always be a personal decision not the state's decision.

Thankfully you're on your own in this belief.. well you and any other libertardians.

Gee Bag

thebigbiffo wrote: »

remember that song by Phil Collins 'in the air tonight'

Why on earth would anyone want to remember a Phil Collin's song?

K-9

Crisscrosser wrote: »

As I've mentioned before, I believe that true good will must from within and be not something that is state-enforced.

A libertarian, thought so. Most libertarians would see some type of sanction necessary in this case. I'd say the captain would be a long time awaiting a new job or trip as somebody who made a moral decision like that, well, put it this way, I wouldn't want him captaining a ship I was on or owned. In a real emergency I wouldn't trust him.

Oceans12

only a truely heartless fecker ignores someone in distress or in need of urgent assistance on the water.



UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Article98
Duty to render assistance
1. Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:
(a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him;
(c) after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call.

in Canada..

"Every qualified person who is the master of a vessel in any waters, on receiving a signal from any source that a person, a vessel or an aircraft is in distress, shall proceed with all speed to render assistance and shall, if possible, inform the persons in distress or the sender of the signal.

"The master of a vessel in Canadian waters and every qualified person who is the master of a vessel in any waters shall render assistance to every person who is found at sea and in danger of being lost."

Thus, §131(1) and 132 of the Canada Shipping Act 2001 legislates an active obligation for seamen to be good Samaritans if another ship or seaman is in distress.

The obligation to render assistance at sea comes from various legal sources, most notably Canada's involvement in the United Nations ("UN") and the International Maritime Organization ("IMO"), and the international conventions that flow from our country's membership in these organizations.

c_man

It's just like the finale to Seinfeld.




Kinda.

high horse

The ads on this thread are all for cruise ships! Another victory for google ads :rolleyes:

Herb Powell

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Fine, I'll just address the topic.

I don't see how the cruise company is responsible for the wellbeing of the castaways if the cruise company never caused the fisherman to become castaways. Didn't the fishermen, who knew the dangers of fishing in the ocean, put themselves in such a situation albeit unintentionally?

The cruise company's captain was simply minding his/her own affairs. If anything, the captain should only be responsible for the affairs of the crew and passengers aboard and himself/herself.

There's certainly nothing wrong with minding one's affairs these days, right?

Crisscrosser wrote: »

I'm against forcing such persons to assist others if such persons are not responsible for causing other people's problem(s).

Whilst I personally don't embrace such a thing, I personally believe that people should have the choice to decide whether they should or should not assist as a matter of good will.

Meanypants.

Capt'n Midnight

Crisscrosser wrote: »

Because authentic good will is a personal choice NOT a state-enforced mandate intended to make Good Samaritans out of people.

This has nothing to do with good will or moral choices.

It's a legal obligation of ships registered in countries signed up to the relevant laws.

Captain's don't have any choice in this matter.
Yer man on the Italian cruise ship


It's not that there isn't any law on the high seas, laws on piracy mean ANY country can prosecute pirates caught on the high seas under their own laws.


If you like those who don't obey the laws become 'outlaws' in the original sense of having no protection in law from anyone.


Maritime law contains very archaic terms precisely because it has been around for so long.

Capt'n Midnight

http://i49.tinypic.com/2dmcfhj.jpg

high horse

high horse wrote: »

The ads on this thread are all for cruise ships! Another victory for google ads :rolleyes:

You know I sit behind 47 computer screens handpicking ads for boards.ie. Thank you for your comments.