What’s interesting about this case — and about the federal court of appeals decision – is that apparently nothing is mentioned about the duties that commanders and other officers in charge of CG vessels may have had . . .
Under the International Law of the High Seas, adopted and incorporated into U.S. admiralty law in about 1920, vessel owners have no duty to rescue “strangers” (i.e. non-crew members) on the high seas. However, the master of a vessel does have such a duty (which allows vicarious liability back to the vessel owner).
It would be interesting to see whether the court drew this distinction . . . perhaps the private litigants sued the wrong parties . . .
This is what is wrong with this country. Two people go out in rough seas without wearing PFD’s and, almost in-evidently, one of them drowns and they try and blame the Coast Guard.
Dave. I agree that the couple were largely to blame for their predicament, however, that would apply to the majority of those requiring rescue at sea. Surely, the point is whether it is reasonable that the Coastguard should have delayed its search for 8 hours. It could be argued that many people, requiring the assistance of the law enforcement services, have placed themselves in harms in way. However, I don’t think that the majority would find that an 8 hour delay in responding to an emergency call was acceptable.
Roger,
I think you need to read the decision again, it clearly says the CG was engaged in other cases at the time. As a decision maker do you divert resources to the case where, again according to the decision, there were a lot of unknowns or continue to prosecute the cases with better data? There are never enough resources when there are multiple cases, go where you have the best chance to make a difference and hope for the best.
So, let me understand this courts decision, in all my 20 years serving in the Coast Guard , I didn’t have any obligation to answer a call to rescue,… Really! ‘Search and Rescue’ (SAR) has been at the root of Coast Guard history, many have answered the call and braved Seas that would make a seasoned mariner think twice about setting sail. ” You Gota go out; but you don’t have to come back’ I could go on, but to the Widow I say blaming the Coast Guard for your husbands death our condolences, however why were you not wearing your PFDS’s? This alone would have made all the difference in the world. Hind sight is so acute;
The SAR Mission
Search and Rescue (SAR) is one of the Coast Guard’s oldest missions. Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority.
What’s interesting about this case — and about the federal court of appeals decision – is that apparently nothing is mentioned about the duties that commanders and other officers in charge of CG vessels may have had . . .
Under the International Law of the High Seas, adopted and incorporated into U.S. admiralty law in about 1920, vessel owners have no duty to rescue “strangers” (i.e. non-crew members) on the high seas. However, the master of a vessel does have such a duty (which allows vicarious liability back to the vessel owner).
It would be interesting to see whether the court drew this distinction . . . perhaps the private litigants sued the wrong parties . . .
This is what is wrong with this country. Two people go out in rough seas without wearing PFD’s and, almost in-evidently, one of them drowns and they try and blame the Coast Guard.
Dave. I agree that the couple were largely to blame for their predicament, however, that would apply to the majority of those requiring rescue at sea. Surely, the point is whether it is reasonable that the Coastguard should have delayed its search for 8 hours. It could be argued that many people, requiring the assistance of the law enforcement services, have placed themselves in harms in way. However, I don’t think that the majority would find that an 8 hour delay in responding to an emergency call was acceptable.
Roger,
I think you need to read the decision again, it clearly says the CG was engaged in other cases at the time. As a decision maker do you divert resources to the case where, again according to the decision, there were a lot of unknowns or continue to prosecute the cases with better data? There are never enough resources when there are multiple cases, go where you have the best chance to make a difference and hope for the best.
So, let me understand this courts decision, in all my 20 years serving in the Coast Guard , I didn’t have any obligation to answer a call to rescue,… Really! ‘Search and Rescue’ (SAR) has been at the root of Coast Guard history, many have answered the call and braved Seas that would make a seasoned mariner think twice about setting sail. ” You Gota go out; but you don’t have to come back’ I could go on, but to the Widow I say blaming the Coast Guard for your husbands death our condolences, however why were you not wearing your PFDS’s? This alone would have made all the difference in the world. Hind sight is so acute;
The SAR Mission
Search and Rescue (SAR) is one of the Coast Guard’s oldest missions. Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority.
Semper Paratus :ALWAYS READY: