Not clear on why anyone should care if a handful of adults engage in highly risky activities as long as it doesnt involve the rest of us or public funds. I really do not care if adults run off to climb Asian mountains despite their cardiac conditions, for example-just don’t expect me to assist or pay for assistance.
1 Like
So, for example if there is criminal homicide by a company and/or its officers or directors, we should just let it be?
In part, that seems to be what the investigations are about: should there be criminal prosecution? It seems far too early to dismiss this.
2 Likes
Criminal corporate homicide is extremely hard to prove and the fact that the CEO went down with the ship, so to speak, strongly suggests that he at least sincerely thought the activity was safe enough and did not intend to kill himself or others with him. If the company is not in existence, there is little benefit to such a prosecution unless the victims’ families push for it-they do not appear to do so.
Disagree. At least one member of Harding’s family wants an investigation, and I have read about others.
We absolutely don’t know what is going on behind the scenes.
I don’t think the US and Canada are investigating on a lark.
3 Likes
So if they were not billionaires but living on social security then it would be ok to use public funds for rescue? So it’s all about how rich they are?
2 Likes
I am sure it is not a lark, but I am also sure the prosecutorial resources could be better utilized to benefit far more people elsewhere-just like the millions spent in the rescue/recovery efforts. Public funds are finite. Using them here means they are not used elsewhere.
It is not related to how rich the victims are-mass transit, for example is used by everyone, so even if the airline has only billionaire passengers on a plane, we will and should rescue it, or a ferry in similar circumstances. Mass transit is a public good. Private expeditions to the ocean are not. We rescue those in US waters with conventional means regardless of income, even when engaged in private activities. We don’t need to extend those efforts worldwide, or to extraordinary means.
For the life of me I can’t find it again but I read that while Oceangate ( maker of the sub) is incorporated in the US, Oceangate Expeditions (travel company) was registered in the Bahamas.
No, it’s about whether they had the capacities to be informed. If these passengers were uninformed themselves, they should have the means to hire experts to inform them, as they could/should when their lives were on the line.
1 Like
Not sure either, but here’s something:
1 Like
A former submariner discusses all sorts of issues with the Titan’s design:
1 Like
Maritime law professors and practitioners chime in on the legal issues and how OceanGate can escape at least some liability:
We aren’t talking about “accredited investors” for SEC or state securities law exemptions.
We are talking about a company (OceanGate) that seems to have clearly conveyed the impression that the Titan was designed/manufactured in “partnership” with entities like NASA, Boeing, and the University of Washington. All three of those entities denied it.
At the very best, this was misleading. The duty was on OceanGate NOT to mislead. I am not sure why the Dawoods and Harding had an affirmative obligation to check up on this when they were told something as a fact.
Could they have hired a private investigator etc to check? Sure, but probably so could you or I for the waivers we are often asked to sign or agree to. Do you want to be held to the standard that you must do your own due diligence when you visit, for example, an amusement park or take a ferry?
Why do you contend that, just because they might have been wealthy, that deception can’t fool them too?
That’s blaming the Dawoods and Harding, not OceanGate. With all due respect, that’s just flat-out wrong in my view.
The issue is OceanGate’s conduct, including both its affirmative acts and omissions.
2 Likes
Even if the vehicle were designed in collaboration with all these entities, passengers in it would still have significant risk of death, would they not?
2 Likes
Yes, and the waiver I signed for my daughter to go tandem paragliding recently had similar language.
I checked reviews on multiple site, and I went with my daughter to ensure all was ok, even though I know nothing about paragliding. I was satisfied.
What if all that had been a lie, with reviews made up (not surprising) etc? Do you think I am stripped of my rights to pursue an action if, heaven forbid, something happened and there is straight-up deception about the professionalism/safety of the paragliding outfit?
I don’t know if that happened in OceanGate’s case, but the rapid and complete denials by NASA, Boeing, and UW speak for themselves. From outward appearances, it doesn’t look good.
I would be more than a bit concerned about things if I were an officer or director of any of the OG entities.
Taking a ferry or park ride is in the US and subject to state and federal oversight. No one thought Oceangate was.
1 Like
Caveat emptor exists for a reason, particularly in international matters. Yes, Americans have been injured and killed on a wide variety of activities all over the world-Central America doesnt follow the same zipline safety standards we do. So proceed with caution and good luck suing those operators.
1 Like
How do you know that, particularly in relation to the Dawoods and Harding? OGI was CLEARLY Washington-based.
And, the US Coast Guard and Canada appear to prima facie believe each of them has jurisdiction to investigate.
I don’t think the “international waters and therefore no jurisdiction” argument is a slam dunk by any means.
Pretty sure the lawyers included it in their waivers. And in the SEC filings.
I didn’t see any mention of that in the SEC Form D that I cited above.
Let me add that you may be right, I may be wrong, or vice-versa. I’ve posted a lot on the legal issues, and it’s probably best that I put tools down for a bit until we see how this plays out. It is murky as heck, I agree, so who knows what’s really going to happen.
One thing that has surprised me a bit is the extent to which some legitimate experts are expressing their opinions publicly. To me this looks like something that is very likely to end up in court, and might end up in several courts. I would be reluctant to say anything publicly if I were expert enough to have any credible likelihood of being subpoenaed.
But then perhaps the public should know how this happened. Perhaps speaking publicly is the morally correct thing to do.