GUILTY CA - Boat fire near Santa Cruz Island; 34 missing, Sept 2019 *captain charged*

[PommyMommy]

SEP 5, 2019
Early investigation of boat fire suggests serious safety flaws aboard vessel where 34 died
A preliminary investigation into the Conception boat fire has suggested serious safety deficiencies aboard the vessel, including the lack of a “roaming night watchman” who is required to be awake and alert passengers in the event of a fire or other dangers, according to several law enforcement sources familiar with the inquiry.

[...]

Authorities have not suggested the fire and fatalities were the result of any criminal wrongdoing, but prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles were at the scene on Thursday preparing to assist investigators and keep tabs on the unfolding inquiry.

A federal law dubbed “seaman’s manslaughter” was used last year in Missouri by federal prosecutors to charge a duck boat captain and two others in connection with the loss of 17 lives when the amphibious craft capsized in a storm. In that case, it was Coast Guard investigators who built the case for criminal negligence. The captain is accused of failing to assess the weather, steer the vessel appropriately and prepare the passengers for abandoning ship.

[...]

A source familiar with the crew’s actions said that hours before the fire broke out, the passengers had performed a night dive. A crew member was awake on the boat and straightening up items in the galley and mess area but went upstairs to the wheelhouse about 2:35 a.m.

Before the crew member went upstairs, he checked that the stove was cold and nothing flammable was out, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Sometime between 2:35 a.m. and 3:15 a.m., the crew member heard a noise and thought somebody had tripped. The crew member went down to the middle level and saw the fire. The flames prevented him from getting down into the galley, the source said.

[...]

 

[PommyMommy]

Rachel Jordan on Twitter
34 candles for 34 lives lost in the Santa Cruz Island dive-boat fire. People are gathering for a vigil in Long Beach, put together by Deep Blue Scuba & Swim Center. @ABC7

7:53 PM - 5 Sep 2019 from Belmont Veterans Memorial Pier

Michael Nardi on Twitter
Memorial for Santa Monica residents who were killed in Conception boat fire off of Santa Cruz Island.

8:21 PM - 5 Sep 2019 from Santa Monica, CA

Rachel Jordan on Twitter (Video)
Long Beach community members walk down Belmont Pier to honor the lives of the divers of the Conception during a candlelight vigil. @ABC7
8:29 PM - 5 Sep 2019

 

[eucalyptuz]

Thanks for this video showing the hatch, sleuth15.
I wonder if both the bunk rooms (left and right) of the central wall of bunks had a hatch? It seems implausible if the stairs to the galley were engulfed that 30+ people could struggle up to a single point above a 3-high bunk and make a safe and timely escape. Maybe in a slow leak evacuation but in an explosion/fire with low visibility...a tough ask.

 

[firebird]

SEP 5, 2019
Early investigation of boat fire suggests serious safety flaws aboard vessel where 34 died
A preliminary investigation into the Conception boat fire has suggested serious safety deficiencies aboard the vessel, including the lack of a “roaming night watchman” who is required to be awake and alert passengers in the event of a fire or other dangers, according to several law enforcement sources familiar with the inquiry.

[...]

Authorities have not suggested the fire and fatalities were the result of any criminal wrongdoing, but prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles were at the scene on Thursday preparing to assist investigators and keep tabs on the unfolding inquiry.

A federal law dubbed “seaman’s manslaughter” was used last year in Missouri by federal prosecutors to charge a duck boat captain and two others in connection with the loss of 17 lives when the amphibious craft capsized in a storm. In that case, it was Coast Guard investigators who built the case for criminal negligence. The captain is accused of failing to assess the weather, steer the vessel appropriately and prepare the passengers for abandoning ship.

[...]

A source familiar with the crew’s actions said that hours before the fire broke out, the passengers had performed a night dive. A crew member was awake on the boat and straightening up items in the galley and mess area but went upstairs to the wheelhouse about 2:35 a.m.

Before the crew member went upstairs, he checked that the stove was cold and nothing flammable was out, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Sometime between 2:35 a.m. and 3:15 a.m., the crew member heard a noise and thought somebody had tripped. The crew member went down to the middle level and saw the fire. The flames prevented him from getting down into the galley, the source said.

[...]

I haven't heard anything from officials except that the boat was safety compliant. I'm "guessing" there was no requirement that there by a "roaming night watchman," and that this article is just trying to incite blame on the part of the dive boat operators. In any case, it looks like there was only a 40 minute period where someone wasn't walking around, and an even shorter period where someone wouldn't have been at least awake. I hate this kind of "journalism." This is the same paper that was begging for someone to take them out there to the scene on a boat the day after it happened. I'm going with tragic accident. I hope they don't try to ruin the boat owners, but I'm thinking that's a pipe dream.

 

[Charlot123]

RIP poor victims. What a horrible death.

Yes, the phones charging are a plausible source of fire.

I am not a boat specialist. I read about another (mall) fire, during which, it was found out, not all stores had doors opening to the street. Hence, I wonder, is there a requirement that boat cabins have doors or separate hatches opening outside in case of the fire? There should be more ways to escape the inferno than the boat had, it seems. If not, then cruises and boat travels are unsafe in general.

 

[distracted]

SEP 5, 2019
Early investigation of boat fire suggests serious safety flaws aboard vessel where 34 died
A preliminary investigation into the Conception boat fire has suggested serious safety deficiencies aboard the vessel, including the lack of a “roaming night watchman” who is required to be awake and alert passengers in the event of a fire or other dangers, according to several law enforcement sources familiar with the inquiry.

[...]

Authorities have not suggested the fire and fatalities were the result of any criminal wrongdoing, but prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles were at the scene on Thursday preparing to assist investigators and keep tabs on the unfolding inquiry.

A federal law dubbed “seaman’s manslaughter” was used last year in Missouri by federal prosecutors to charge a duck boat captain and two others in connection with the loss of 17 lives when the amphibious craft capsized in a storm. In that case, it was Coast Guard investigators who built the case for criminal negligence. The captain is accused of failing to assess the weather, steer the vessel appropriately and prepare the passengers for abandoning ship.

[...]

A source familiar with the crew’s actions said that hours before the fire broke out, the passengers had performed a night dive. A crew member was awake on the boat and straightening up items in the galley and mess area but went upstairs to the wheelhouse about 2:35 a.m.

Before the crew member went upstairs, he checked that the stove was cold and nothing flammable was out, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Sometime between 2:35 a.m. and 3:15 a.m., the crew member heard a noise and thought somebody had tripped. The crew member went down to the middle level and saw the fire. The flames prevented him from getting down into the galley, the source said.

[...]

40 minutes. So sad.

If the crew member went to investigate as soon as he heard that the noise, then it was likely an electrical issue caused by the charging station. An exploding lithium battery would have made a noise but would not have started a fire that grew so large that quickly, which would prevent access to the galley from the sleeping quarters or the upper deck.

If this is the case, is it something that can be proven, given that the boat has been submerged for an extended period of time?

 

[Lilibet]

I don’t think it’s possible to make a boat or any other place perfectly safe in a catastrophe. That’s expecting more than is humanly possible. We should expect reasonable safety measures that fit the environment, and common sense from those who choose to be there. Escape routes will be different on a boat than a building due to structural design. But a catastrophe (like 9-11 for example) is beyond the ability of normal safety measures to handle. And I believe it’s the same for this boat catastrophe. Unless extreme negligence is discovered, it’s a tragic accident that no improvement of exits could have prevented.

Each of us will decide how much risk we can foresee and handle. Personally, the sleeping arrangements would have been more risk than I could handle. But those on the boat were apparently OK with it or decided the diving opportunity was worth it. Once we’ve decided, I guess the old saying holds true: “You pays your money and you takes your chances.” There are no absolute guarantees in life no matter how much we wish there were and want to blame someone because something awful happened.

I wish peace for those who have lost family and friends.

 

[BeachSky]

Interview with the owner of the Conception - Glen Fritzler

 

[BeachSky]

Surviving crew member thought phone charging station might have sparked boat fire

The guy who designed the boat - thinks it started in the bunk area.

Roy Hauser, who designed the Conception and commissioned its construction in 1981, suggested another. He said he thinks, based in part on footage he viewed of the wood-hulled boat being ravaged by fire, that the blaze started in the bunk area and spread so rapidly that the 34 people there could not get out.
"This had to have been, in my estimation, one of those lithium battery chargers," Hauser told The Times. "This happened in the belly of the boat. Those people did not have a chance to get out: From stem to stern, that boat was burning."

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Experts in maritime law said Truth Aquatics will almost certainly file a petition under the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. The law is routinely invoked for an accident on a waterway, whether it involves tug boats and barges in busy harbors or leisure boats at vacation hotspots.

The law allows the owner of a vessel to petition a federal court to exonerate it from damages, or limit damages to the post-accident value of the ship, which would be zero in the case of the sunken Conception. An owner has roughly six months to file a petition and can do it before or after it is sued.

"It really is antithetical to most fair-minded people and jurists to allow this old defense to potentially let someone off scot free," said Daniel Rose, an attorney with the Kreindler & Kreindler firm which represents victims in maritime accidents.

The 1912 sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage, in which more than 1,500 people were killed, is a classic example of the law being successfully employed.
California boat fire may put spotlight on Titanic's legal defense

 

[distracted]

Experts in maritime law said Truth Aquatics will almost certainly file a petition under the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. The law is routinely invoked for an accident on a waterway, whether it involves tug boats and barges in busy harbors or leisure boats at vacation hotspots.

The law allows the owner of a vessel to petition a federal court to exonerate it from damages, or limit damages to the post-accident value of the ship, which would be zero in the case of the sunken Conception. An owner has roughly six months to file a petition and can do it before or after it is sued.

"It really is antithetical to most fair-minded people and jurists to allow this old defense to potentially let someone off scot free," said Daniel Rose, an attorney with the Kreindler & Kreindler firm which represents victims in maritime accidents.

The 1912 sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage, in which more than 1,500 people were killed, is a classic example of the law being successfully employed.
California boat fire may put spotlight on Titanic's legal defense

Truth Aquatics filed this very suit on Thursday.
Boat owners seek to head off lawsuits after 34 die in fire

 

[Cryptic]

Even though people now can sue only for gross negligence, juries tend to assume that any accident that results in a serious injury or death must have involved gross negligence, said Andrea J. Saltzman, who represented Santa Barbara in the case.

I have an impression that many insurance companies just write off the jury trial as they know that they are likely to get hit with mega damage awards.

They then save their legal fire power for the automatic appeals where judges are more likely to know and apply the legal, not emotional definition of 'gross negligence'.

Ambulance chasers, of course, emphasize the jury "awards" in their advertising. They don't really indicate the amounts collected after appeals.

 

[Cryptic]

I haven't heard anything from officials except that the boat was safety compliant. I'm "guessing" there was no requirement that there by a "roaming night watchman," and that this article is just trying to incite blame on the part of the dive boat operators.

Though I am no fan of lawsuits either, it is entirely possible for a charter boat to be determined as "safety compliant" while not following mandator regulations about a night watch.

This is simply because inspectors don't accompany the boat at sea. Thus, they don't know if they watch is actually being kept. Rather, they could just rely on the crew's word that it is.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

"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 complaint, filed to the US District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of Truth Aquatics and its owners Glen and Dana Fritzler, said.

The law being used, the Limitation of Liability Act, dates back to 1851 and has been invoked in past high profile maritime disasters such as the sinking of the Titanic, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

Victims' families will be told that they have six months to challenge Truth Aquatics' legal attempts to clear itself of any negligence, or to limit the liability to the current value of the boat, which is zero, the lawsuit said.

None of the victims' families have yet filed lawsuits against the owners, but crew members have submitted written notice that they may file for legal claims in the future, the document said.
The owners of the boat in the California fire that killed 34 employ 'heartless' legal strategy that could limit payouts to $0

 

[Cryptic]

But a catastrophe (like 9-11 for example) is beyond the ability of normal safety measures to handle. And I believe it’s the same for this boat catastrophe. Unless extreme negligence is discovered, it’s a tragic accident that no improvement of exits could have prevented.

Each of us will decide how much risk we can foresee and handle.

Good points.

I do think that boats need to have more than just a token alternative exit and that a viable alternative could well have saved lives. But... at the end of the day, the boat was compliant with safety regulations.

Then, there is the concept of personal choice in regards to risk (as you stated). Certain activities are inherently risky: diving, parachuting, rock climbing, motor cross, fungi diving, boxing / mma etc.

Equipment- including boats and crew / guide / trainer competence only needs to be compliant with general safety guidelines. They do not have to be "state the art" and "best of the best". Thus, as you stated, unless extreme negligence is shown, accidents well.... they can happen.

 

[PommyMommy]

40 minutes. So sad.

If the crew member went to investigate as soon as he heard that the noise, then it was likely an electrical issue caused by the charging station. An exploding lithium battery would have made a noise but would not have started a fire that grew so large that quickly, which would prevent access to the galley from the sleeping quarters or the upper deck.

If this is the case, is it something that can be proven, given that the boat has been submerged for an extended period of time?

Only time will tell. I sure hope so. The families and the community need answers as to how this tragedy occurred. And, depending on the findings of course, action should be taken to keep it from happening again. I agree with Lilibet though - there are no safety measures that will make a boat perfectly safe in a catastrophe. MOO

 

[zecats]

SEP 5, 2019
Early investigation of boat fire suggests serious safety flaws aboard vessel where 34 died
A preliminary investigation into the Conception boat fire has suggested serious safety deficiencies aboard the vessel, including the lack of a “roaming night watchman” who is required to be awake and alert passengers in the event of a fire or other dangers, according to several law enforcement sources familiar with the inquiry.

[...]

Authorities have not suggested the fire and fatalities were the result of any criminal wrongdoing, but prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles were at the scene on Thursday preparing to assist investigators and keep tabs on the unfolding inquiry.

A federal law dubbed “seaman’s manslaughter” was used last year in Missouri by federal prosecutors to charge a duck boat captain and two others in connection with the loss of 17 lives when the amphibious craft capsized in a storm. In that case, it was Coast Guard investigators who built the case for criminal negligence. The captain is accused of failing to assess the weather, steer the vessel appropriately and prepare the passengers for abandoning ship.

[...]

A source familiar with the crew’s actions said that hours before the fire broke out, the passengers had performed a night dive. A crew member was awake on the boat and straightening up items in the galley and mess area but went upstairs to the wheelhouse about 2:35 a.m.

Before the crew member went upstairs, he checked that the stove was cold and nothing flammable was out, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Sometime between 2:35 a.m. and 3:15 a.m., the crew member heard a noise and thought somebody had tripped. The crew member went down to the middle level and saw the fire. The flames prevented him from getting down into the galley, the source said.

[...]

This is even more a shame, that maybe it could have been prevented if someone had been awake and noticed immediately. My heart just breaks over this horrific tragedy.

 

[Penelope]

Experts in maritime law said Truth Aquatics will almost certainly file a petition under the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. The law is routinely invoked for an accident on a waterway, whether it involves tug boats and barges in busy harbors or leisure boats at vacation hotspots.

The law allows the owner of a vessel to petition a federal court to exonerate it from damages, or limit damages to the post-accident value of the ship, which would be zero in the case of the sunken Conception. An owner has roughly six months to file a petition and can do it before or after it is sued.

"It really is antithetical to most fair-minded people and jurists to allow this old defense to potentially let someone off scot free," said Daniel Rose, an attorney with the Kreindler & Kreindler firm which represents victims in maritime accidents.

The 1912 sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage, in which more than 1,500 people were killed, is a classic example of the law being successfully employed.
California boat fire may put spotlight on Titanic's legal defense

NOTE: Please understand that this comment is not meant to insult or hurt the victims' families but just to rationally discuss legal matters.

I have been following a scuba forum and the common thinking about this lawsuit is that it was filed at the behest or direction of the insurance agency/agencies involved with Truth Aquatics. The fact that it was filed so quickly and that families have only a six month window to respond is troubling, but maybe the purpose behind filing it so soon after the tragedy. IMO, filing it so quickly is heartless, especially since many victims remain unburied and one has not been found yet. However, I am sure the insurance company/ies have pushed to have it done ASAP in order to limit their liability.

The NTSB and authorities investigating this accident have stated they will file a preliminary report in 10 or so days, but that it will take a year (at least) for them to file the report that would (hopefully) determine the cause of the fire.

One can only hope that this tragedy will result in safer vessels, including regulations that take into account modern necessities and conveniences of customers, including phone and camera rechargers - especially if they are found to be the ultimate cause of the fire.

My heart goes out to the families of those killed in this horrible tragedy.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

NOTE: Please understand that this comment is not meant to insult or hurt the victims' families but just to rationally discuss legal matters.

I have been following a scuba forum and the common thinking about this lawsuit is that it was filed at the behest or direction of the insurance agency/agencies involved with Truth Aquatics. The fact that it was filed so quickly and that families have only a six month window to respond is troubling, but maybe the purpose behind filing it so soon after the tragedy. IMO, filing it so quickly is heartless, especially since many victims remain unburied and one has not been found yet. However, I am sure the insurance company/ies have pushed to have it done ASAP in order to limit their liability.

The NTSB and authorities investigating this accident have stated they will file a preliminary report in 10 or so days, but that it will take a year (at least) for them to file the report that would (hopefully) determine the cause of the fire.

One can only hope that this tragedy will result in safer vessels, including regulations that take into account modern necessities and conveniences of customers, including phone and camera rechargers - especially if they are found to be the ultimate cause of the fire.

My heart goes out to the families of those killed in this horrible tragedy.

I agree. It feels morally heartless and unethical. Unfortunately in today’s litigious society, it’s just the way the world works now.

 

[firebird]

Though I am no fan of lawsuits either, it is entirely possible for a charter boat to be determined as "safety compliant" while not following mandator regulations about a night watch.

This is simply because inspectors don't accompany the boat at sea. Thus, they don't know if they watch is actually being kept. Rather, they could just rely on the crew's word that it is.

Right. I wasn't clear. I think they were both safety compliant upon inspection AND that there likely was no requirement for a roaming night watchman -- although the article implied otherwise.