Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

} Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?
}
} I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I thought that I read that it wasn't under US jurisdiction: it was entirely
a Canadian operation and was in "open waters"

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/23/2023 6:56 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

2. The submersible is launched from a barge that was towed to location.
Not sure who owned/registered that.

3. The Titan's owner is the Oceangate corporation in Washington. This
might be the controlling jurisdiction.

4. The Titan was built in collaboration with the University of
Washington. The hull was built by Spenser Composites

I would suspect that Oceangate will go bankrupt. It owns some other submersibles. There seems to be plenty of others to be sued.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

For maritime issues, that's the case. But if there are waivers of
liability, those are contractual and will likely be governed by the law
of where the documents were executed or the nationalities of the
parties. It can be complicated and could depend in part on the precise language of the document, as well as whether an individual will be seen
to have executed it in his individual or his business capacity.

The rules in the US, and probably Canada too, are that you can't relieve yourself from liability from gross negligence of intentional misconduct.
And if that is proven, insurance doesn't have to pay either.

2. The submersible is launched from a barge that was towed to
location.
Not sure who owned/registered that.

3. The Titan's owner is the Oceangate corporation in Washington.
This might be the controlling jurisdiction.

4. The Titan was built in collaboration with the University of
Washington. The hull was built by Spenser Composites

I would suspect that Oceangate will go bankrupt. It owns some other submersibles. There seems to be plenty of others to be sued.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

For maritime issues, that's the case. But if there are waivers of
liability, those are contractual and will likely be governed by the law
of where the documents were executed or the nationalities of the
parties.

An article in Yahoo News says the passengers all signed waivers,
which tend to be enforcable in the US where some of them lived,
not so much in the UK where others lived.

The head of the company died in the wreck, and it's not clear what
assets the company has other than two more similar submersibles which
I wouldn't think would be worth much at this point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "John
R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

It appears that Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

For maritime issues, that's the case. But if there are waivers of >>liability, those are contractual and will likely be governed by the law
of where the documents were executed or the nationalities of the
parties.

An article in Yahoo News says the passengers all signed waivers,
which tend to be enforcable in the US where some of them lived,
not so much in the UK where others lived.

The head of the company died in the wreck, and it's not clear what
assets the company has other than two more similar submersibles which
I wouldn't think would be worth much at this point.

FWIW, from what I could piece together, there was in 2021 a successful
effort to go down to the Titanic in this very same ship. The price was
lower then. A trip scheduled for 2022 was cancelled but I didn't find
the reason.

The first trip gives reason to think the ship is safe, but otoh, lots of
things don't break the first time you use them and break later.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

On 6/23/2023 6:56 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

2. The submersible is launched from a barge that was towed to location.
Not sure who owned/registered that.

3. The Titan's owner is the Oceangate corporation in Washington. This
might be the controlling jurisdiction.

4. The Titan was built in collaboration with the University of
Washington. The hull was built by Spenser Composites

I would suspect that Oceangate will go bankrupt. It owns some other >submersibles. There seems to be plenty of others to be sued.

So nobody here thinks the release they signed will dissuade their
estates and families from suing, or cause the cases to be quickly
dismissed by any court that might here it?

AIUI, the releases mentioned the possibility of death 8 times, and said
that the submarine was experimental and had not been approved by anyone (outside of the people running it).

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case?

I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

For maritime issues, that's the case. But if there are waivers of >>liability, those are contractual and will likely be governed by the law
of where the documents were executed or the nationalities of the
parties.

An article in Yahoo News says the passengers all signed waivers,
which tend to be enforcable in the US where some of them lived,
not so much in the UK where others lived.

In general in the US you can't contract away the right to sue for damage
caused by gross negligence of wilful misconduct. So suits are still
possible alleging that. And if it's proven, insurance may not be
obligated to pay.

The head of the company died in the wreck, and it's not clear what
assets the company has other than two more similar submersibles which
I wouldn't think would be worth much at this point.

People are always responsible for their own torts, even if done on behalf
of a corporation. So if it's found that someone with substantial assets
acted with gross negligence, that person's estate could be liable for
damages.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:c8ed9i1hdlfh3b9hmbln0e6hbm27md33e3@4ax.com...

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "John
R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

It appears that Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably we are looking at the start of a very lengthy court case ? >>>>>
I wonder what jurisdiction will be decided ?

I am not sure of all the facts but

1. Usually the ship's registration would be the controlling
jurisdiction but the submersible wasn't registered.

For maritime issues, that's the case. But if there are waivers of >>>liability, those are contractual and will likely be governed by the law >>>of where the documents were executed or the nationalities of the
parties.

An article in Yahoo News says the passengers all signed waivers,
which tend to be enforcable in the US where some of them lived,
not so much in the UK where others lived.

The head of the company died in the wreck, and it's not clear what
assets the company has other than two more similar submersibles which
I wouldn't think would be worth much at this point.

FWIW, from what I could piece together, there was in 2021 a successful
effort to go down to the Titanic in this very same ship. The price was >lower then. A trip scheduled for 2022 was cancelled but I didn't find
the reason.

The first trip gives reason to think the ship is safe, but otoh, lots of >things don't break the first time you use them and break later.

There have been multiple trips. One was covered by CBS. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o





--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)