quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Looks like the whole crew was asleep not watching.

I hope the liability is now 100% on the operator and the suit to limit damages is denied.

If the boat owners had fully instructed the crew to have night watches, and unknown to them the crew did not, then the owners should have little liability in a criminal case. The owners would still have a civil liability though.

quote:

I hope the liability is now 100% on the operator and the suit to limit damages is denied.

Just about every dangerous activity I have ever been involved with that involved third parties providing services also included a thorough liability waiver.

Perhaps something like this:

https://channelislandsdiveadve...7/LiabilityTRUTH.pdf

Furthermore, if the fire was caused by something plugged in by a customer, how is that not the responsibility of the customer?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Just about every dangerous activity I have ever been involved with that involved third parties providing services also included a thorough liability waiver.

Perhaps something like this:

https://channelislandsdiveadve...7/LiabilityTRUTH.pdf

Furthermore, if the fire was caused by something plugged in by a customer, how is that not the responsibility of the customer?

LOL, it says nothing about the crew being irresponsible and letting the boat burn while they abandon the passengers.

Yes, blame the victims.

quote:

LOL, it says nothing about the crew being irresponsible and letting the boat burn while they abandon the passengers.

LOL! It sure doesn't! But I believe it covers exactly that seeing that it appears to cover anything that happens to you once you board their vessel including their own negligence.

The owner's insurance company will likely pay some claims, but that will be as far as it goes.

quote:

Yes, blame the victims.

I'm not blaming anybody yet. But then again, the cause hasn't been determined yet. Let's say one of the victim's chargers malfunctioned and started a fire. Who's responsible for that? The boat owner?

Let's not get into a pissing match please.

If a victims charger malfunctioned and started a fire, that is the liability of the victims. HOWEVER, if under USCG rule (it is a USCG inspected vessel) they were supposed to have a person awake and on watch (who would've possibly smelled the fire starting and could've put it out in the early stages), and they did not, there is a lot of liability on the crew and the owner.

From the design of the boat and design of the flybridge wheelhouse. Since it doesn't have an integral staircase to the main galley/diningroom, if a fire is brewing in there, you can't smell a damn thing until it's way too late.

If you read between the lines in the USCG report posted earlier, it reads as if they didn't have a watch or watch schedule even. As the report was posted as a Marine Safety Bulletin by the USCG right after this incident

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Porta...9mjw5bsMDkquMTPKKTpA

It seems like the order of responsibility is that the crew must comply with all USCG regulations, and the owner must assure the environment/culture exists such that the crew diligently follow said regulations.

A "liability waiver" does not absolve a party of their duty, nor does it surrender the rights of the estate, which comes into being after the death of the signer.

The owners filed a lawsuit to limit liability just days after the incident occurred on the Conception. Here are some paragraphs out of the full article (link at bottom)

"Attorneys for the Conception dive boat owners have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court to limit liability in the Monday fire and sinking that killed 34 people off the coast of Santa Barbara County.

Attorney Russell Brown filed an amended complaint Thursday for exoneration from or limitation of liability, citing 46 U.S. Code Section 305, which limits liability for seagoing vessels for personal injury or death.

“At all relevant times, plaintiffs used reasonable care to make the Conception seaworthy, and she was, at all relevant times, tight, staunch, and strong, fully and properly manned, equipped and supplied and in all respects seaworthy and fit for the service in which she was engaged,” the document claims.
The Fritzlers ask the court to exonerate them from liability or limit their liability.

“The fire and all consequential alleged injuries, damages and deaths occurred without the privity or knowledge on the part of plaintiffs, and was not caused or contributed to by any negligence, fault or knowledge on the part of the plaintiffs, or anyone for whom the plaintiffs may be responsible, at or prior to the commencement of the above-described voyage.”

https://www.noozhawk.com/artic...n_dive_boat_disaster

I wonder if it was just a tired crew member who fell asleep or if it was more a problem and accepted that crew napped/slept during night watches.

We will never know if someone had been awake would they have been able to alert others.

Are the smoke detectors interconnected so when one goes off they all go off?

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:
I wonder if it was just a tired crew member who fell asleep or if it was more a problem and accepted that crew napped/slept during night watches.

We will never know if someone had been awake would they have been able to alert others.

Are the smoke detectors interconnected so when one goes off they all go off?

I would expect there to be some type of fire detection system that would not only ring the entire vessel in the case of smoke or heat but also notify a central monitor (most likely in the wheelhouse) where exactly the sensor first detected smoke or heat. Regular smoke detectors may also be present in the individual sleeping quarters, but they wouldn't necessarily be interconnected.

This vessel seems to be large enough where it might have all that, but I don't know for certain if it did.

These boats are relatively small inside. If a smoke detector went off in the main cabin, most likely it would be heard anywhere on that floor.

IF the smoke detector even had a battery in it.

IF

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Just about every dangerous activity I have ever been involved with that involved third parties providing services also included a thorough liability waiver.

Perhaps something like this:

https://channelislandsdiveadve...7/LiabilityTRUTH.pdf

Furthermore, if the fire was caused by something plugged in by a customer, how is that not the responsibility of the customer?

LOL, it says nothing about the crew being irresponsible and letting the boat burn while they abandon the passengers.

Yes, blame the victims.

The crew may be irresponsible in not standing a watch and catching the fire while it was still fightable, that is to be determined and highly likely. I can find a lot of fault with a lot of things that happened on the Conception (emergency exits, build design, location of portable fire extinguishers etc.), but the crew abandoning ship to use a neighboring vessels VHF radio, might not have been one of them.

However, when the crew did realize the fire, they did get mayday calls off and the boat was so engulfed in flames that they couldn't use the ladder (located in the aft) and had to abandon the flybridge, because it (the house)was so engulfed in flames, so they had to jump down in the front of the flybridge and one broke a leg doing so. At this stage in the fire, their was no putting the fire out with portables or buckets of water, unless you had a fire hose, fire dept boat, or serious means of combating a fire. So they went to another boat to continue to call the USCG for help.

A boat of this size generally goes from a 3 gallon bucket sized fire to fully engulfed in flames in about 60 seconds generally. I have successfully fought 2 fires on 2 different yachts of this size, but caught them when they had just started and were 3 gallon bucket sized fires. EVERYTHING on a boat of this size is highly flammable, the build material (wood),the fiberglass over the wood, the furnishings, the paint on the walls, etc., everything.

I have done some charters of various vessels over the years and yes, some things the guests can and do defy all logic when it comes to safety and could absolutely start a fire or get themselves hurt in other ways. Here's one "Our outlet is not working in the bathroom" me "Ok, I'll reset the breaker, what did you have plugged into the outlet when it stopped working" them "A hair dryer and a curling iron were both plugged in and on". So 2 items drawing probably 20 amps total from a 15 amp circuit. Then after telling them they could only use one of those two items at a time, and them agreeing, miraculously the breaker tripped again 5 minutes later...… that is when I more sternly told them again that they couldn't do that...…. this is just one example of MANY.

The Coneception was built in an era where the guests didn't have a lot of plug in stuff. The owners should have installed several independent outlets each on their own 20 amp circuits for the charging of devices, but doesn't sound like the case. Also, lithium batteries do have a reputation of catching fire. At this point it's speculation as to what exactly caused the fire. Guests battery or charger, or boat's outlet/wiring etc.

Also, if original, the wiring on this boat is near the end of it's life span. Yachts/boats use stranded/tinned wire, not solid wire like in a house, it degrades quicker than solid wire that isn't exposed to a salt air environment, getting banged around and dealing with vibration, etc. etc. 37 years is a long run for wiring on a commercial boat of this size. I don't know if it's original or not, but most of the time on situations like this, they'll just rewire circuits as they go bad and not do a complete rewire of the vessel at once or unless they start having multiple wiring problems, because down time is money and rewiring an entire boat of this size is a lot of money. A marine electrician gets $100-130 an hour. Plus the wiring and other materials is much more costly and time consuming than household stuff. For example- any wiring I do, is heat shrinked and cable tied every 6" and supported.

quote:

Also, if original, the wiring on this boat is near the end of it's life span. Yachts/boats use stranded/tinned wire, not solid wire like in a house, it degrades quicker than solid wire that isn't exposed to a salt air environment, getting banged around and dealing with vibration, etc. etc. 37 years is a long run for wiring on a commercial boat of this size. I don't know if it's original or not, but most of the time on situations like this, they'll just rewire circuits as they go bad and not do a complete rewire of the vessel at once or unless they start having multiple wiring problems, because down time is money and rewiring an entire boat of this size is a lot of money. A marine electrician gets $100-130 an hour. Plus the wiring and other materials is much more costly and time consuming than household stuff. For example- any wiring I do, is heat shrinked and cable tied every 6" and supported.

Actually stranded wiring lasts longer than solid, even on land. If the wiring degrades on a boat, usually it is at the terminals. Most of the wire, unless saltwater corrosion went up under the jacket, is still servicable. I doubt that the boat's wiring was the culprit, unless someone stupidly increased the breaker size over original. Pretty sure this is going to end up as a battery or charger fire.

Conception crew member who broke his leg jumping from the flybridge to escape the fire is now suing Truth Aquatics and claims that:

"Ryan Sims, who had been a steward on the boat for just three weeks, alleges in a lawsuit filed Sept. 12 that the Conception’s owners were negligent in their failure to properly train crew members, give adequate safety and medical equipment and provide safety rules, among other claims."

https://www.latimes.com/califo...es-dive-boat-company

Exam does not find cause of boat fire

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...X7h1?ocid=spartanntp

I'm pretty certain stranded wire would lose its integrity much quicker than a solid conductor if a terminal or insulation was comprised. Once fluid has a path to the stranded conductors, capillary action would draw liquid between each strand like a candle wick and degrade large lengths. On the flipside, solid would likely work harden if subjected to constant vibrations and potentialy break within the jacket while being less likely to break down as rapidly if exposed to moisture.

Stranded is more resilient to vibrations that would be present in a vessel.

I have never seen solid wire on a boat, so it is probably against all rules. Wires usually do not see water, just moisture in the air.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
A "liability waiver" does not absolve a party of their duty, nor does it surrender the rights of the estate, which comes into being after the death of the signer.

IANAL, and perhaps you know a lot more about liability waivers than I. With that said, I’d swear that I’ve seen language along the lines of “In consideration for being able to participate in <whatever>, I agree to hold harmless and waiver any claims against <whoever>, even in the event they are negligent. Further, I intend this waiver to be binding on my heirs, successors, and assigns.”

Are you saying guppy, that a waiver with the above elements (actually worded correctly in lawyer jargon rather than whatever mishmash I typed above) would not surrender the rights of the estate?

I attended an “counterterrorism” driving course long ago that required signing a liability waiver. The driving school rep said something to the effect of, “The people who sign these without any hesitation are lawyers because they know how unimportant they are.” My understanding is that such waivers don’t cover a company/individual from liability in the event of a certain level of negligence, regardless of what the waiver says. For example, a nightclub owner can’t chain an exit door closed and then rely on a “We’re not responsible for anything” waiver to protect him from liability if people can’t get out during a fire. A firearms instructor couldn’t point a gun at a student and shoot him thinking the gun was unloaded, and then say, “Well, you signed a waiver acknowledging that this was a dangerous activity.”

I would, however, be interested in learning the facts of the matter from someone who actually knows the law.