This Captain needs a new ride.

First, unless there's another factor it doesn't meet the legal requirements for gross negligence. It's a very bad error, it could be incompetence, but not gross negligence unless there's more to the story. As to the insurer going after him, they're not going to waste their time and money doing so unless two things are in play. First, they have evidence of gross negligence that we aren't aware of and, second, he has more wealth than we're aware of. Getting a verdict in their favor would be very difficult in front of a jury and, even if they got it, collecting the judgement would be even more difficult. As to the owner, he's not likely to do so either considering the very high burden of proof and difficulty collecting.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.​

We have a difference of opinion, because I think it fits that definition like a glove, and at his age I'd be surprised if he doesn't have property, bank accounts or other seizable assets although he'd probably bankrupt. That won't stop a suit though. The insurance company has to answer to its stockholders. But I guess we'll see as it plays out. No need for speclation one way or another. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Oh, c'mon, let's speculate a little bit.

I have seen a lot of captains fired (and fired a couple) for doing stuff that a prudent mariner might describe as negligent, arrogant, ignorant, or simply oblivious. I have never heard of a single one being held financially responsible for anything or even having action taken against their license.

My crystal ball says this will simply fade away quickly with the season and only surface in bar conversation or when the same thing happens again. History is on the side of the usually anonymous guy who just had a really bad day and hopefully learned something about overconfidence.

Gee, wish I'd known all these years that we were immune to lawsuits. I could have relaxed and just enjoyed the rides more. Wait, didn't I hear just recently of a deceased captain being named in a lawsuit? Must have been a misprint. In fact, rather than defending myself (and winning) when a client tried to sue me after his battery charger failed and started a small fire (which I caught and extinguished), I should have just claimed immunity. Foolish me.
Wait, that's fact; not speculation. Sorry.

If you're on the owners insurance, I don't think they can sue you unless there are legal charges filed, gross negligence, DUI, etc. You are a named insured person that the policy is covering. But anyways, this thread isn't about the insurance aspect of it.

How come you guys aren't waiting for the NTSB report before pointing fingers?

"P.S. The reason I haven't been sued is because I haven't made mistakes. "

"In fact, rather than defending myself (and winning) when a client tried to sue me after his battery charger failed and started a small fire (which I caught and extinguished),"

So, which is it. You've never been sued or you were sued by a client over a fire?

You can surely be sued by anyone anytime. You won the suit, you said. As to the Captain, I've explained that as packaging. But he's not the real target and he's being sued as Tote's employee. Including him is largely a strategy for when Tote says "it wasn't us, it was him" which they have already done. Only problem is that does zero for them as he still did anything as their employee. so they're still responsible.

Now you, as an independent captain, take a family into a hurricane and you all die, I'd suspect you would get sued.

My error. It was so inconsequential and long ago that I'd forgotten. Was sued in Small Claims and won. He thought I should pay for his new charger and the wiring that burnt due to his decade old charger going bad. Never mind that I saved his boat.

"Now you, as an independent captain, take a family into a hurricane and you all die, I'd suspect you would get sued."

Why is that? Is it the hurricane or the lives lost that you think changes the liability? What if a family were aboard this boat and died because he turned and ran over the charted and well marked jetty in broad daylight? I don't understand where you're drawing the line.

Whether including the captain in the El Faro suit is only " largely a strategy" or not it still has to be defended against, otherwise that "strategy" could easily result in a default judgement. If Tote bankrupts or otherwise makes their assets hard to grab the collectors will go after the captain's estate. The collectors don't care where they collect from. Trust me on that. Even if his family wins they'll still have the lawyer's fees for defending unless they're awarded attorney fees, which is unlikely unless the suit is ruled frivolous.

You and Capt.J vilified the captain of the El Faro for making a judgement call as to the course he'd follow when there is absolutely no evidence that that decision caused the sinking. In fact there is much evidence to the contrary indicating that they sank because the hull was breached and they lost power as they faced an otherwise very survivable situation. Yet here, where a captain took a shortcut across a well marked and charted jetty in broad daylight, you seem to think what he did wasn't negligent. I'm at a complete loss to understand where you draw the line.

And from Capt.J:
"If you're on the owners insurance, I don't think they can sue you unless there are legal charges filed, gross negligence, DUI, etc. You are a named insured person that the policy is covering. But anyways, this thread isn't about the insurance aspect of it.

How come you guys aren't waiting for the NTSB report before pointing fingers?"

1) Gross negligence is not a criminal charge, although it can rise to that, and you don't have to commit a criminal act to be sued.
2) Are you formally on the owner's insurance of every boat you move or take out for an afternoon? I'm not, although I'm operating under his insurance as his captain. That doesn't relieve me of my responsibility nor liability if I commit an act of negligence though. It only means that the boat's owner is covered. The insurance company can still come after me, and so can the owner.
3) I don't think there'll be an NTSB report on this. Besides, as I stated at the beginning, all the evidence needed to satisfy me is right there in the article. They sue and have me on the jury, he's cooked.

As his attorney, I'd move to have you removed from the jury. lol

3) I don't think there'll be an NTSB report on this. Besides, as I stated at the beginning, all the evidence needed to satisfy me is right there in the article. They sue and have me on the jury, he's cooked.

Even before any official report, there you find him guilty..

The report on this was made on scene. There will be no further "official investigation". I'm quite familiar with that inlet. It's an easy one. I saw no claim about illness, injury, bad weather or mechanical malfunction, only 'the sun got in his eyes'. He didn't miss a channel marker. He drove onto the charted and marked jetty that runs parallel to the course he should have been heading. What more do I need to know? But don't worry. It's just my opinion. He won't have to pay out until a more formal proceedings. Now with the El Faro I think there's a lot more that needs to be known before any conclusion is reached, yet others here don't, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with vilifying that captain before the investigation (which is being conducted by NTSB, USCG and the U.S. Navy) takes place. I'm really having trouble understanding where some people draw the line on what constitutes negligence and when it's alright to condemn a captain. Seems almost like if he's dead it's OK, but if you might run into him on the dock it's not.

Who said you were immune? All I said was that I have seen a lot of captains fired but have never seen one sued or had his license suspended or revoked for doing stuff like the boat driver who is the subject of this thread or what other mariners might consider negligent. The ones I have seen fired for running aground or alliding with something each did more damage than the probable combined value of the last 15 boats you drove. They are still driving boats and still have licenses. You could probably get sued for scuffing the wheelhouse deck by some uptight NY boat owner by the sound of things.

I seriously doubt if the CG or anyone else is going to waste much time "investigating" this recreational boat accident that did not hurt anyone or cause a pollution incident. Like I said, it will probably just fade away until some other boat driver does the same thing. This was no groundbreaking maritime event that will lead the IMO or the USCG to call a special session to write new training or navigation rules.

No, it doesn'

No, it seems like if it's your opinion it's ok and if it's someone else's it's not.

Agree completely. Being or acting stupid isn't against any law that I know of. What I said was: "Wouldn't be at all surprised if the insurance company comes after him for the better part of a million dollars." That's quite different.

Something like that apparently. Still would like to understand your reasoning that this captain's actions are fine and the other captain deserves to be sued and vilified.

I've never said anyone was fine nor anyone should be vilified. I have said from the information I have at this point, I don't believe this one meets the criteria of gross incompetence nor do I believe he'll be sued.

I do believe it was a mistake in judgement taking the route El Faro took. I hold the company accountable and the captain as an employee of the company.

There's also one huge difference in these two situations. In one just a boat was sunk. In the other, 33 lives were lost. I do not then consider them similar situations in any way. I don't compare the two.

It seems to me that you just did compare the two.

The Hurricane is a large contributing factor to the EL Faro sinking. I don't understand why you cannot see that it is a contributing factor? The Hurricane definately caused the scuttle to blow out, they do not blow out in calm weather. The Hurricane most likely caused the vessel to lose power. The Captain had also been pushing the vessel at nearly top speed for 2 days to try to beat the Hurricane. Yes, heading directly into a hurricane, is a poor judgement call when there were other routes not in the Hurricanes trajectory and only added 150 NM to the voyage. Once the boat went down the Hurricane made it nearly impossible for any of the 33 crew to survive. If you combined everything mechanically that happened on the EL Faro and took the hurricane out of the equation, it's highly probable the vessel would not have sank. Heck, even on the bounty there were 14 survivors.

Anyways, stop talking about the EL Faro, this is an entirely different thread.

Correction...I don't consider the two equal or comparable. I consider the seriousness of one far beyond that of the other.

The discussion is about negligence. You're talking about amount of damages. How does the amount of damage make a negligent act not negligent? If someone died in this incident would it suddenly become negligence?