Cruise Ship Law

Over the Rail
Washington Post

The dramatic rescue at sea last week of two cruise passengers who fell off the balcony of the Grand Princess ocean liner made CoGo wonder: How often do cruisers fall overboard?

There's no official source keeping count, but Canadian professor Ross Klein, a self-described cruise junkie, lists 75 accounts of cruise passengers going overboard since 2003 on his Web site, http://www.cruisejunkie.com. He gathers his information mainly through news clippings. His list includes people who were saved and apparent suicides.

Between 2003 and 2005, 24 people went missing from ships that are members of the Cruise Lines International Association, according to the trade group, whose membership includes most lines operating out of North America. The FBI investigated 12 disappearances of people from cruise ships between January 2002 and February 2007, according to the FBI. That number doesn't reflect all cruise-related missing-persons cases, because the FBI has limited jurisdiction over crimes aboard ships.

It's hard to say what happened in the cases investigated "due to the inability to locate bodies," an FBI official told Congress last week. However, investigators believe alcohol was involved in five cases; foul play was suspected in four.

The 22-year-old man and 20-year-old woman who fell overboard last week are very lucky not to be showing up in missing-persons stats. After a four-hour search, the woman was found about 150 miles off the coast of Galveston, Tex. As she was being hoisted aboard, rescuers spotted the man. He decided to continue the cruise; the woman returned home. At the request of the passengers, details about how it happened are not being released, according to a Princess Cruises spokeswoman.

Reporting by Cindy Loose

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 11:44 AM | Permalink

By Sheila Marikar

This year, more than 12 million people will book trips on cruise ships, hoping to relax and kick back onboard luxury liners. But sojourns on the high seas aren't always smooth, and in some cases they can even be dangerous.

Recent incidents of passengers falling overboard, mysteriously disappearing, falling victim to crime and abusing alcohol have made the cruise experience seem more murky than placid.

Earlier this week, a man and woman fell from their Princess cruise ship balcony into waters off the coast of Texas. Before that, in early March, Michael Menckmyer plunged 60 feet into the dark abyss of the Caribbean after drinking too much.

The high seas can also pose a risk of high crimes. According to the International Council of Cruise Lines, there were 178 complaints of sexual assault, four robberies and 24 missing persons aboard cruises between 2003 and 2005.

False Sense of Security

Terry Riley, cognitive psychologist and author of "Travel Can Be Murder: The Business Traveler's Guide to Personal Safety," believes that because of the sense of safety cruises provide, people onboard sometimes let themselves go a little too wild.

"They tend to feel secure because they're thinking, 'I'm not in a foreign country where all those other people are,' so they think they can relax," he said.

Because of this false sense of security, cruise passengers often make themselves susceptible to crime.

"They think, 'I'm around the pool, it's OK. I can leave my stuff here, because where's somebody going to escape to?' And they might not even notice how things are gone until they get home," Riley said.

Drinking only exacerbates that line of thinking. When alcohol is thrown into the mix, people are prone to make bad decisions -- like imbibing on a balcony floating 60 feet above the ocean.

In March, Michael Menckmyer let loose on a seven-day Bahamas cruise to celebrate a godson's birthday. Whether an adverse reaction, or just too much of a good time, Menckmyer blacked out.

"I had ordered some room service and beer, and I was drinking that. I don't remember much after that," he told ABC's "Good Morning America." "Apparently, the alcohol took over with the medication I was on."

Just after midnight, Menckmyer inexplicably leapt off the side of the ship found himself floating in the Caribbean. He was rescued and revived hours later.

Riley explained that passengers who drink too much can run into danger on deck, too.

"Criminals tend to narrow in on people who are drunk," Riley said. "They are followed from bars because that's where the drunks are and that's where the bad guys can see the behavior they're looking for."

Be Aware of Risks

Lawyer Charles Lipcon has made a career out of prosecuting cruise lines for crimes against passengers. He doesn't think the average person is aware of the risks that go along with a high-seas vacation.

"They don't understand the dangers," he said. "They mistakenly believe they're in a totally safe environment and nothing could be further from the truth. It's quite dangerous for themselves and for their children."

Because it's hard to prosecute a crime that happens in international waters, Lipcon believes sexual predators and other dangerous people flock to cruises.

"It's a great place to murder somebody and nothing will happen," he said. "Nobody investigates."

Making Safety a Priority

The Cruise Line International Association maintains that it constantly works to ensure passenger safety and says people rarely fall overboard or go missing.

"Our passengers' safety and security is the cruise industry's highest priority. Cruising is one of the most popular vacation options, in large part because of its excellent safety record," the CLIA said in a statement. "The recent incidents of passengers falling overboard are isolated… In 2006, cruise lines provided Congress with data that showed that less than one per 1 million cruise passengers went missing over a three-year period."

Carnival, the cruise line on which at least six passengers have gone missing since 2004, said it exercises a zero tolerance policy towards crime onboard its ships and trains security personnel in specialized areas, including bomb detection, crisis management, first aid, firefighting and fire prevention.

"The safety and security of guests and crew is our No. 1 priority," Carnival said in a statement. "Any allegation of crime aboard our vessels is taken seriously and reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities."

Despite criminal activity and overboard incidents, the cruise industry hasn't suffered. The CLIA expects approximately 12.6 million people to travel aboard cruises this year, up 500,000 from last year.

What Cruise-Goers Can Do

Lipcon urged those who board luxury liners to pack their common sense with them.

"As far as crimes go, they should never walk by themselves late at night on an outside deck. Children always need to be supervised," he said. "It's the kind of thing where you've got to use your common sense. People leave their common sense at the dock. They think they're totally safe."

Riley offered the following tips for behaving onboard a cruise ship, or in any travel situation.

• Pack a small flashlight: You may need it to light your way in an emergency.
• Carry a cell phone: It's like traveling with a "virtual" buddy, and help is only a few button presses away.
• Make eye contact: Develop a habit of looking around and making eye contact with others -- especially with those behind you.
• Avoid alcohol and other drugs: If you can't think straight, you are setting yourself up to be a victim.
• Trust your instincts: Listen to your internal warning system. In most cases it won't let you down.
• Stay with others: There is safety in numbers.
• Never trust others to arrange for your safety: You are ultimately responsible for your personal safety while traveling.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:51 PM | Permalink

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Doris O. Matsui (CA-05) questioned cruise industry representatives and took testimony from Sacramento resident Laurie Dishman today during a hearing on cruise ship crimes before the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. The Congresswoman requested the hearing after learning of how Ms. Dishman was sexually assaulted by a Royal Caribbean employee while on a cruise in February of 2006.

In her opening remarks, Congresswoman Matsui highlighted the dangerous and hazy legal status of cruise lines such as Royal Caribbean: “Cruises operate in a legal vacuum, where a lack of accountability empowers predators and obstructs their victims’ pursuit of justice.”

Continued Matsui: “This is an unacceptable situation, one made worse by the cruise lines’ own efforts to avoid scrutiny of, and accountability for, their own handling of the security of their passengers.”

During her appearance before the Subcommittee, Ms. Dishman recounted her disturbing and emotional struggle that stemmed from Royal Caribbean’s refusal to investigate how she was raped by one of the company’s “security guards.” Ms. Dishman’s assailant, in fact, had no security training at all. He was actually a janitor who was only performing security duties because Royal Caribbean did not have enough trained guards on board its ship.

In her opening remarks to the Subcommittee, Congresswoman Matsui focused on the cruise industry’s historic pattern of delay and obfuscation in investigating allegations such as Ms. Dishman’s. Said the Congresswoman: “There is no shortage of rape, sexual assault, alcohol-related abuse, or man-overboard cases on America’s cruise lines. This is alarming in and of itself. However, what is even more troubling is that most of these incidents are never fully resolved or prosecuted.

“My hope for this hearing is that the cruise lines finally take these crimes seriously and enact necessary reforms to protect innocent people like Laurie Dishman.”

Congresswoman Matsui’s remarks before the Subcommittee, as prepared for delivery:

I would first like to thank Chairman Cummings for calling this important hearing. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to bring this issue before this Subcommittee and to conduct a thorough and fair hearing of crime on cruise ships.

I asked Chairman Cummings to hold this hearing because a young woman from my district came to me for assistance after she had been a victim of a violent crime on a cruise ship.

That young woman, Laurie Dishman, is here with us today.

Laurie shared her shocking story with me in a letter one year ago.

As a passenger on board the Vision of the Seas, a ship operated by Royal Caribbean, Inc., Laurie was raped by a crew member. The story of her ordeal on the ship was shocking enough. Unfortunately, I soon learned that was only the beginning.

Laurie wrote me to tell me she was having difficulty getting a response to her request for information about the incident from the cruise line. As I began looking into the matter, a number of red flags were raised regarding the handling of Laurie’s particular case.

Specifically, the FBI made a decision not to compel the alleged rapist to take a polygraph test. In addition, Royal Caribbean was withholding Laurie’s own medical information from her.

These examples beg the question: What is the process when a crime is committed on a cruise line, and what recourse do passengers have?

The more I have inquired, the more I have been alarmed that there is no shortage of cases of rape, sexual assaults of minors, alcohol-related fighting and abuse, and persons overboard.

Even more troubling, most of these incidents have not been fully resolved or prosecuted. The onion, it seems, has only more layers to peel back.

Laurie’s case was declined for prosecution under circumstances that strongly suggest federal authorities did not fully investigate her case. In addition, it appears that cruise industry representatives had coached the alleged rapist in his testimony.

I have since learned that there have been no convictions for rape cases on cruise lines in four decades. This is a statistic that takes on a new meaning through the lens of Laurie’s experience.

Cruise industry executives testified last year before the House Government Reform Committee that 66 cases of sexual assault were reported from Royal Caribbean between 2003 and 2005.

However, as a result of a civil lawsuit, Royal Caribbean was forced to turn over internal documents that showed that these numbers were actually much higher. Specifically, such cases had actually occurred 273 times over the three-year period in question.

I have also come to learn that many of the crimes that were not reported involved minors. It seems impossible that Royal Caribbean would not consider these crimes worthy of reporting.

This time around, I want to know whether the industry has accurately depicted the number of sex crimes on ships. We also must be told how the industry chooses to define these crimes.

The cruise industry claims that they are the safest form of transportation. Some industry representatives have even said that cruises are safer than being onshore. I find such claims to be dubious at best, because they ignore a critical issue: on land, citizens benefit from the security offered by a police force, and there are laws on the books governing people’s actions.

Not so on cruise lines. Americans who go on cruise ships for a family vacation have no idea they may be stepping into a situation in which United States law has little power, and where they may be victims of a crime without any opportunity for recourse.

Cruises operate in a legal vacuum, where a lack of accountability empowers predators and obstructs their victims’ pursuit of justice. This is an unacceptable situation, one made worse by the cruise lines’ own efforts to avoid scrutiny of, and accountability for, their own handling of the security of their passengers.

My hope for this hearing is that the cruise lines finally take these crimes seriously and enact necessary reforms.

I am certain that, after hearing from Laurie, you will come to the same conclusion I have: we must make sure something like this never happens again. I appreciate Laurie’s determination and I am very proud to be by her side in this effort.

I am confident that, as a result of this hearing, we will have a better understanding of what actions we must take to ensure the safety and security of the more than ten million Americans who travel on cruise ships.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before you go on a cruise, make sure you take the free Cruise SOS Card. The free wallet sized card has important phone numbers and instructions on what to do if you are the victim of a crime on a cruise ship.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 10:35 AM | Permalink

By Kimi Yoshino
Times Staff Writer

The handling of a rape allegation reflects lines' laxness and the FBI's limits, critics say.

After Laurie Dishman reported to Royal Caribbean crew members that she had been raped by a security guard, she recalled, the purser and the head security officer sat on her bed - the alleged crime scene - and suggested that she learn to "control her drinking."

The ship's doctor, she said, handed her two gray garbage bags and told her to "collect the evidence" in her cabin herself. [Learn what our maritime firm recommends you do if you have been raped on a cruise ship].

"In no way while I was on the ship did I feel like they were taking care of what happened," Dishman said in an interview, recounting that night 13 months ago as Royal Caribbean's Vision of the Seas cruised the Pacific en route to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. "Nothing was professional."

The 36-year-old Sacramento resident - who is suing Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., alleging negligence - is expected to be one of the key witnesses Tuesday in Washington before a House subcommittee examining crimes on cruise ships.

Accounts such as hers have put cruise operators and the FBI on the defensive.

Royal Caribbean, which disputes Dishman's contentions, says millions of Americans vacation on cruises without incident each year, giving the industry an enviable safety record. And the FBI, which investigates some crimes involving Americans on cruise ships, cites insufficient evidence or resources as impediments to pursuing certain cases.

But passenger safety advocates, led by the group International Cruise Victims and by Dishman's congresswoman, Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), say her case highlights concerns that the $32-billion industry takes a lax approach to crime.

Critics accuse the industry of having downplayed the number of sexual assaults in testimony at a previous congressional hearing. Further, they say that investigations can be shoddy or incomplete and that few crimes aboard cruise ships lead to arrest or prosecution.

"It's a very low priority," Charles Lipcon, a Miami-based maritime attorney who represents plaintiffs in lawsuits against the cruise industry, said of the FBI's approach to cruise crimes. "I call them 'pretend investigations.' They pretend to investigate and nothing happens."

FBI officials declined to comment in detail until after Tuesday's hearing, the first called by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

But they reiterated the bureau's commitment to "addressing piracy and serious criminal acts of violence" and working with the cruise industry and other law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute crimes.

Representatives of Miami-based Royal Caribbean told The Times that evidence collection in Dishman's case was "inconsistent" with company policy.

They said Royal Caribbean cooperated with the FBI and later terminated the suspect, who told authorities it was a case of consensual sex.

Sex crimes - regardless of where they take place - are difficult to prosecute. Cases often rest on one person's word against the other's. Witnesses are rare.

On cruise ships, alcohol frequently plays a role. In addition, foreign crew members can be difficult to locate for questioning if they are terminated for violating company policies or reach the end of their contracts before inquiries are completed.

Even when cases might have sufficient evidence, the FBI and federal prosecutors are more likely to devote resources to fighting terrorism, bank robberies and political corruption.

"You have limited resources and you put those in your highest priority," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor.

"If you're in California, at the top of the list is going to be immigration, terrorism, political corruption and narcotics... Sometimes there's also the mentality that the victim can sue in civil court. It doesn't leave the victim without remedies," Levenson said.

Lawrence Kaye, an attorney who represents the cruise industry, said the companies "very much" wanted the FBI involved in investigating crimes because employees lack expertise in forensic investigation.

In Dishman's case, a cruise security guard - who she said had harassed her in the ship's bar that night and asked for her cabin number - allegedly forced his way into her room after she answered the door on the first night of the cruise, pushed her back onto her bed and raped her. Dishman said she told him no and tried to push him away.

Dishman said she had five drinks over several hours, including a glass of wine at dinner, but did not believe she was drunk. When she woke up the next morning, her pants were off and she had bruise marks around her neck, she said.

The suspect, who told his employer and law enforcement authorities that the sex was consensual, was fired for violating the company's policy on fraternizing with guests. He continued to do his job for a week after the incident.

Dishman and her attorney say authorities failed to devote sufficient time to investigating her claims.

The FBI interviewed the accused crew member Feb. 26, 2006, the day the ship returned to port in San Pedro. A letter from the bureau to Dishman indicates that the U.S. attorney's office decided not to prosecute the case the same day FBI agents boarded the ship. An FBI spokeswoman in Los Angeles cited insufficient evidence in the case.

The bureau did decide to give the suspect a lie detector test a few days later, but by then he had been fired and sent home to Trinidad and Tobago, according to court records.

Dishman said she met, at her request, with officials at the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office to try to persuade them to file charges. They advised her to write to members of Congress and to pursue civil action against the cruise line.

"I know we have terrorism and we have all these things going on in the world," Dishman said. "But I'm the victim here and I'm an American, and they're telling me there is nothing they can do for me. I don't understand."

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 2:46 AM | Permalink

By Kimi Yoshino
Times Staff Writer

The cruise industry — facing rough seas amid heightened public scrutiny of shipboard safety — is being called in front of Congress again to answer whether cruise operators downplayed crimes on cruise ships.

In addition, some lawmakers are looking to crack down on the $32-billion cruise business because of increasing reports of crime, illness and shipboard disappearances.

"I am hearing more and more stories about victims where crimes have been either unreported or not prosecuted," said Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), who requested the March 27 hearing before a House transportation subcommittee. "We really do need to shine a light on this industry. We trust these cruise companies and I don't know whether we should."

Among Matsui's concerns are whether the industry accurately depicted the number of sex crimes on ships and how it chose to define the crimes. Industry executives testified last year that 178 passengers on North American cruises reported being sexually assaulted from 2003 to 2005. More than 12 million people worldwide took cruises last year.

The hearing — the third on cruise crimes but the first in the transportation subcommittee — follows a January report in the Los Angeles Times that said companies might have downplayed the numbers.

The article cited internal Royal Caribbean records that were turned over as part of a civil lawsuit. The company's spreadsheets revealed that at least 273 people had reported being the victims of sexual assault, battery, harassment or inappropriate touching during a nearly three-year period. The cruise line reported 66 cases to Congress.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. executives maintain that they provided accurate statistics based on legal definitions of sexual assault. Spokesman Michael Sheehan said Monday that the company was happy to continue discussions with lawmakers "regarding the exemplary safety and security record of the cruise industry."

Gary Bald, Royal Caribbean's senior vice president of global security and a former top FBI official, has been asked to appear before the subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Representatives from the FBI, the Coast Guard and International Cruise Victims, a support and advocacy group, are likely to testify. The witness list hasn't been finalized.

"Cruising is one of the most popular vacation options in large part because of its excellent safety record," said Christine Fischer, spokeswoman for the Cruise Lines International Assn., the industry's primary lobbying and marketing organization.

Lawmakers, though, have expressed concern about regulatory loopholes that allow ships to operate under "flags of convenience" issued by countries such as Liberia, Panama and the Bahamas. The foreign registries allow the operators to pay little in U.S. corporate income taxes and to avoid U.S. labor laws. In addition, jurisdiction for investigating crimes is muddied by international waters.

Lawmakers are working on redrafting and reintroducing legislation proposed last year by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) that would require cruise operators to report crimes involving U.S. citizens to the Department of Homeland Security within four hours. The crime reports would then be posted on the Internet for public review.

Ken Carver, co-founder of International Cruise Victims, said he would like to see independent security forces on the ships. "You've got a cruise ship out there, people are drinking while stuff's going on and nobody is responsible," Carver said. "It's like a town of 3,000 people with no independent police force."

Matsui became aware of the issues facing the cruise industry after she was contacted by a constituent, Laurie Dishman, who alleged that she was raped while on a Royal Caribbean cruise to Mexico.

The FBI and the U.S. attorney's office decided not to arrest the suspect — a member of the crew acting as a security guard — citing a lack of evidence.

"I want to see the criminals prosecuted," said Dishman, who will testify at the hearing. "I want justice to be served."

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 1:06 PM | Permalink

By Macollvie Jean-Francois of Sun-Sentinel.com
& Sarah Lundy of the Orlando Sentinel

Coast Guard crews found a 35-year-old man alive far offshore in the Atlantic ocean on Friday, hours after he reportedly fell from a cruise ship about 30 miles east of Fort Lauderdale.

Coast Guard rescuers aboard a cutter saw Michael Mankamyer, a hospital technician from Orlando, waving his arms and screaming for help about 8:45, said spokesman Petty Officer 1st Class Dana Warr. He'd been in the water around eight hours after he was reported overboard.

"It's pretty miraculous that he's still alive," Warr said. "It's not that it doesn't happen, but it's few and far between when we're trying to find someone that jumps from a cruise ship."

Warr said Mankamyer had no floatation device or other safety gear on him when he fell 60 feet. They do not know yet how he managed to survive.

Mankamyer, who family and friends said is an imaging technician with Florida Hospital, had drifted 15 miles.

Mankamyer was in good condition, suffering from mild hypothermia and a collapsed lung, when rescuers aboard the Miami cutter Chandeleur airlifted him to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami.

Margaret Wega of Orlando, said Mankamyer was on the cruise with her son, Salvie, to celebrate the boy's 16th birthday. She said he has spoken to her son but he wasn't able to talk about what happened.

"I didn't want to think the worst when I heard what happened," she said. "I thank God he's OK."

The cruise ship Carnival Glory, which is based in Port Canaveral, reported the man missing to the Coast Guard about 12:45 a.m. Friday.

The ship reported that Mankamyer had fallen or jumped from the balcony in his room down 60-feet into the water, a Coast Guard statement said.

A witness said Mankamyer was intoxicated, Warr said.

After the cruise ship alerted authorities early Friday, it stayed in the area to assist with the search, Warr said.

``The time that they did spend was appreciated,'' Warr said.

The search was conducted by the cruise ship, another cruise ship called the Disney Magic, the Coast Guard cutters Chandeleur and Vigorous and a helicopter.

In a prepared release, Carnival said the passenger went overboard while the ship was en route to Nassau, The Bahamas, its scheduled port of call. It was on a seven-day cruise that departed Port Canaveral on March 10. Upon learning of the missing passenger, the ship's command notified the Coast Guard, then helped in search and rescue activities until 4:20 a.m. when it was released and continued on its itinerary. The Glory will arrive at Nassau on Friday, slightly behind schedule. After spending the day in port, the vessel will depart for Port Canaveral, arriving on Saturday and loading another group of passengers for another seven-day voyage.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 1:56 PM | Permalink

This young man died after a prank, but could he have been rescued?
Mark Russell
March 4, 2007

It is more than two years since Andrew Gready jumped overboard on the P&O cruise ship Pacific Sky and his family are still searching for answers as to why he was not rescued after being spotted treading water 30 metres from the ship.

Andrew's father, Trevor, of Stawell, has vowed never to give up fighting for an inquest to be held into his 24-year-old son's death, which he believes was caused by a prank that went terribly wrong.

Mr Gready claims his son was desperately treading water for almost an hour but the ship bungled the rescue attempt.

He said the family had been trying ever since without success to obtain video footage taken by a passenger showing what happened on the night, as well as a Queensland water police report on Andrew's drowning.

Mr Gready claimed he saw the police report the day after his son went overboard that indicated Andrew had still been in the water calling out for help at 2.47am — 16 minutes after P&O launched a lifeboat to rescue him.

The Gready family, who hired a helicopter to try to find Andrew after he had disappeared, hopes that if they can obtain this crucial information the Victorian coroner will finally agree to hold an inquest into Andrew's death.

They claim one of the lifeboats being lowered to try to rescue Andrew jammed.

P&O denies the claim and says that while two lifeboats were lowered, the 30-knot wind and five-metre swell meant that only the boat on the starboard side — the opposite side from where Andrew had jumped — could be launched.

P&O says the lifeboat was in the water by 2.31am but by the time it reached his position he could not be found.

Andrew had been drinking heavily when he jumped overboard at 2.10am and a spotlight found him treading water at 2.24am about six kilometres off Caloundra in Queensland on Saturday, January 8, 2005.

He had been celebrating the last night of a 10-night cruise with his father, mother Jeanett, and younger siblings Christopher and Rebecca.

Fellow passengers threw lifebuoys and pool furniture into the water in the hope that Andrew could grab hold of them to stay afloat, while the ship's crew used flares and strobe lights to mark the spot where he was last seen.

Search crews scoured the coast for most of the week until police called off the search after six days.

"I'd just like to find out what happened," Mr Gready told The Sunday Age.

"All we're looking for is answers — why they couldn't find him, why the rescue failed that night.

"We believe the rescue systems on these cruise ships are too outdated; they're just laughable."

Mr Gready said he could not understand why P&O did not equip its ships with the more-portable Zodiac liferafts and inflatable boats.

"It's been two years now but it's still very hard on the family; all his brothers and sisters were very close (the Greadys had six children) and Jeanett still can't talk about it.

"I don't blame the crew; they did the best they could with what they had. It was just all too slow. I mean, he was only 30 metres off the side of the ship and to this day I don't understand why someone didn't jump in and swim over to him.

"I'm just hoping an inquest will force P&O to lift their game."

P&O spokesman John Richardson said the cruise ships were equipped with UK Transport Department-approved sea rescue craft that could operate safely in any ocean in the world.

He said "man overboard" drills were conducted regularly and the company did not accept that the attempt to rescue Mr Gready had been carried out in "anything other than an efficient and proper manner".

Andrew's drowning is one of a string of incidents on P&O vessels, including claims by a girl, 16, that she was raped on the Pacific Star (police decided not to lay any charges over the claims because of a lack of evidence) and the death of Brisbane mother Dianne Brimble, who died on the floor of a Pacific Sky cabin after ingesting a mixture of alcohol and the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, dubbed "fantasy", in 2002.

In a statement, P&O said the company acknowledged it had a responsibility to create a safe environment for passengers.

P&O said measures recently introduced to improve safety on its ships included:

■ An increase in the number of trained and licensed security personnel.
■ The installation of CCTV surveillance in public areas.
■ Baggage screening and personal X-ray at embarkation.
■ The use of drug sniffer dogs at the start of all cruises.
■ Random scanning for drugs at overseas ports.
■ Prohibiting passengers taking alcohol on board.
■ The closure of bars from 4am to 10am.
■ An overhaul of responsible service of alcohol policies.
■ Changes to remuneration arrangements for bar staff so they no longer received commission on alcohol sales.
■ A new "excessive behaviour" policy, with passengers engaging in such behaviour ordered off at the next port of call, with no fare refund.

P&O's logbook of trouble
■ September 24, 2002 Mother of two Dianne Brimble, 42, dies on the floor of a cabin on the Pacific Sky after ingesting a mixture of alcohol and the drug fantasy. Eight Adelaide men have been named as "persons of interest" in her death.
■ March 2003 Pacific Sky is forced to abort a cruise from Auckland to Tonga after water floods into the hull.
■ November 2004 Pacific Sky cruise is delayed from Brisbane after a school of jellyfish shuts down the ship's engines.
■ January 2005 Andrew Gready, 24, of Stawell, disappears after jumping overboard from the eighth level of the Pacific Sky off the coast near Caloundra.
■ March 2005 Pacific Sky passengers are flown home from New Caledonia after the ship experiences mechanical problems.
■ April 2006 Australian woman Kathryn Sheppard Irwin, 20, dies after a jet ski accident while on a week-long P&O cruise off the island of Penang in Malaysia.
■ January 2007 Girl, 16, claims she was raped on the Pacific Star (left) after a Hawaiian-themed fancy-dress party as the ship returned from Port Douglas. Police decide not to lay any charges because of a lack of evidence.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 11:15 AM | Permalink

Sandra A. Cook, Appellant, vs. Crazy Boat of Key West, Inc., and William Shepard, Appellees.
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3303; 32 Fla. L. Weekly D 644
March 7, 2007, Opinion Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, a passenger who was injured in a boat ride, sued appellee corporation, seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered during the boat ride. The Circuit Court for Monroe County (Florida) granted summary judgment in favor of the corporation. The passenger appealed.

OVERVIEW: The passenger admitted to signing a release, but claimed that this release was void pursuant to 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 183c(a), and because the release was ambiguous and did not contain the word "negligence." The appellate court found that the trial court properly rejected both of these contentions. The vessel was a "thrill ride" vessel that was available for customers who willingly desired to go for a ride. The corporation was not in the business of "transporting passengers" but rather it was in the business of providing a recreational activity. In addition, the corporation did not travel between ports of the United States but rather left from and returned to the same port. Accordingly, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 183c(a) did not apply. The appellate court also rejected the passenger's contention that the statutory language "between ports of the United States" could have been interpreted to apply to trips out from one port and back to that same port as it contradicted the plain language of the statute. The release was not ambiguous because it failed to use the term "negligence." The release encompassed the alleged negligence which was the basis of the passenger's claim.

OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:33 PM | Permalink

DAVID SCOTT McMILLAN, Plaintiff, v. WEEKS MARINE, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20833
March 22, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a worker in the dredging industry, brought an action against defendant employer under the Jones Act, alleging that he sustained damages as a result of the employer's negligence. After a jury verdict in the worker's favor, the employer filed several motions, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion to vacate the award of past and future lost earnings and for a new trial on damages.

OVERVIEW: The worker alleged that, through its negligence and unseaworthy vessels, his employer subjected him to unsafe working conditions from which he sustained injuries. According to the worker, he had been working on an overly muddy scow and was not given a chance to wash the mud off his boots before transferring to another boat. As a result, he slipped and fell off the boat, sustaining facial and shoulder injuries. A jury returned a verdict finding that the employer was partially negligent, and awarded the worker $ 378,533. The court found that the worker's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the employer partially negligent. However, it also found that the worker's expert improperly based his projections of lost earnings on his assumption that the worker would work for the rest of his work-life on a full-time basis at an artificially determined wage. The court concluded that the expert reports lacked a proper foundation because the expert failed to consider the worker's complete work history and the seasonal nature of the worker's dredging industry positions prior to the injury. As a result, the court ordered a new trial on damages.

OUTCOME: The court denied the employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law, but granted the motion to vacate the award and for a new trial on damages.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:33 PM | Permalink

SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., PETITIONER v. MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
127 S. Ct. 1184
March 5, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Respondent foreign company sued petitioner foreign importer, alleging that a foreign preservation petition negligently misrepresented a vessel's fitness. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the district court could not dismiss the case under the forum non conveniens doctrine until it determined that it had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Certiorari was granted to resolve a split among the circuits.

OVERVIEW: A district court was allowed to dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warranted. A forum non conveniens determination was a threshold, non-merits issue because resolving such a motion did not entail any assumption by the court of substantive law-declaring power. The lower court's concern that it could not condition dismissal on respondent's waiver of any statute of limitations defense or objection to a foreign forum's jurisdiction was not an issue in the case as proceedings to resolve the instant dispute were already underway. If a court could readily determine that it lacked jurisdiction over a cause or a defendant, the proper course was to dismiss on that ground. However, immediate dismissal was warranted in the instant case as discovery concerning personal jurisdiction would have burdened petitioner with needless expense and delay.

OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:31 PM | Permalink

Benny W. Dickey v. Midstream Fuel Services, Inc.
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA
2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 160
March 9, 2007, Released

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: An employee sued an employer seeking, pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime law, to recover for the injuries to his lungs caused by his exposure to noxious fumes while working for the employer. The Mobile Circuit Court (Alabama) entered summary judgment for the employer. The employee's Ala. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion was denied. The employee appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the appellate court.

OVERVIEW: The employer argued that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court held that the employee conceded that he could not recover for injuries he had sustained more than three years before he filed his suit. The employer's claim that even if the employee had a claim of negligent aggravation, the employer did not know that its conduct caused or contributed to his injury was rejected as an employer could be liable even if it was not aware that its conduct was contributing to the employee's injury. Moreover, the employer knew that its conduct was causing or contributing to the employee's condition. The employer's claim that even if the employee had a claim for negligent assignment, the employee had not personally told the employer that he suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) was rejected. The employer was aware of the employee's COPD before it assigned him to a ship, ordered him to paint the engine room, and reassigned him to another ship. Finally, the courts had rejected the modified continuing tort doctrine as a basis for recovery under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The summary judgment as to those claims was affirmed.

OUTCOME: The summary judgment was reversed as to the negligent aggravation and negligent assignment claims. In all other respects, the summary judgment was affirmed. The matter was remanded to the trial court.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:31 PM | Permalink

SONITO SHIPPING COMPANY LTD., Plaintiff, -against- SUN UNITED MARITIME LTD., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19531
March 19, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff owner, asserting a claim for relief within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h), commenced an action in order to invoke the remedy of maritime attachment and garnishment afforded by Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. B. The court issued an ex parte order for process of maritime attachment. Defendant charterer moved under Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. E(4)(f) for an order vacating the attachment.

OVERVIEW: The charterer argued that under English law the claim the owner asserted for indemnity in respect of a cargo claim that the owner had not yet paid was premature by reason of the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement (ICA), and consequently could not form the basis for an attachment under Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. B. The owner's complaint made it clear that its claim was solely one for indemnity with respect to the owner's liability to the cargo interests on a claim that those interests had asserted against the owner. That claim would have been decided by arbitration in London. The arbitration was just getting started. The owner had not made any payment to the cargo interests in respect of their claim. An English court of appeal stated that the "condition precedent" for apportionment and indemnification under the ICA was that the cargo claims had been paid. Thus, the court concluded that the owner had not carried its burden of showing that at the time of the attachment it had a valid maritime claim against the charterer. Finally, even if the court had discretion to uphold the attachment when the claim was unripe, there were no compelling circumstances to do so.

OUTCOME: The motion for an order vacating the attachment was granted. The writ of attachment was vacated and the complaint was dismissed. The vacatur and dismissal were without prejudice to the owner filing a complaint and seeking an attachment at a later date, if subsequent developments made it clear that under English law a claim for indemnity had accrued.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:29 PM | Permalink

STANLEY KELVIN EUBANKS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NOBLE OFFSHORE CORPORATION; ET AL., Defendants, NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) INC., Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5815
March 13, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a negligence action brought under the Jones Act, appellant drilling company sought judicial review of the decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, to grant summary judgment in favor of appellant seaman for injuries he sustained while working on a mobile offshore drilling platform.

OVERVIEW: The drilling company argued that the district court abused its discretion by granting, on the eve of trial, the seaman's motion to designate the litigation as an admiralty or maritime claim and to strike the jury demand. Although there was a very strong argument that the district court erred in its ruling, there was no reversible error in the present case. Although it opposed the motion, the drilling company did not request a continuance to cure any possible error. Furthermore, the drilling company had no right to demand a jury trial. Accordingly, a new trial under different procedural timetables and before the same judge would hardly change the outcome. Furthermore, there was no clear error in the district court's factual findings. The district court never reached the issue of whether the mobile offshore drilling platform was unseaworthy. As to the remaining three findings, the appellate court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been committed.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:29 PM | Permalink

DAVE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. ALTER BARGE LINE, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18191
March 15, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff former employee sued defendant former employer in Illinois state court for retaliatory discharge under Illinois common law and for violation of 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 174/20 of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 174/1-174/35. The employer removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment.

OVERVIEW: The employee, who worked as a deckhand aboard river towboats, claimed that he was terminated for reporting to a manager that coworkers were using illegal drugs. The court found that the employee's claim under the Illinois Whistleblower Act was preempted by 46 U.S.C.S. § 2114, which provided a cause of action for seamen who were discharged for reporting safety law violations to federal authorities; conflicts existed between the rights and remedies provided under the two statutes, and application of the Illinois statute would have destroyed the uniformity of the rules applicable to commerce on inland waterways. The employee lacked a viable claim under § 2114 because he did not refuse to perform any duties and had not made a report to federal authorities until after his discharge. The employee's common law retaliatory discharge claim was not preempted under § 2114 but was preempted by general maritime law; the only recognized exception to the at-will employment doctrine under general maritime law was when a seaman was terminated for filing a personal injury suit against an employer, while Illinois common law provided for a much wider range of viable retaliatory discharge actions.

OUTCOME: The employer's summary judgment motion was granted.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:27 PM | Permalink