4 ms·

I keep seeing articles being pushed that the victim's families have no case. But with the whistleblower lawsuit, the conversations and tweets, the CEO seems to

by LanceH 3y ago

I keep seeing articles being pushed that the victim's families have no case. But with the whistleblower lawsuit, the conversations and tweets, the CEO seems to have just skipped engineering warnings and worked harder at convincing people. He convinced people that dangers he knew of weren't dangers. I don't think that can get waivered. Then one of the articles has a sub-title saying that the families will have a hard time finding a lawyer to take the case. I'm pretty sure the billionaires can find a lawyer for this if they choose. They could have lawyers lined up around the block working on contingent for the high profile nature of this and the possibility of getting work with billionaires. The only thing holding back lawsuits would be the lack of potential payoff.

ramesh31 3y ago
>I keep seeing articles being pushed that the victim's families have no case. But with the whistleblower lawsuit, the conversations and tweets, the CEO seems to have just skipped engineering warnings and worked harder at convincing people. He convinced people that dangers he knew of weren't dangers. I don't think that can get waivered Liability waivers have approximately zero standing in court. It's just something the defense can hold up and say "look, they were warned!". It doesn't legally absolve you of any liability whatsoever, and any jury is highly unlikely to be sympathetic to the defendant here. OceanGate as a company effectively ceased to exist the moment this happened. Most likely their assets will be liquidated, and whatever's left will be a court battle with insurance companies for years to come.
- voxic11 3y ago
  Liability waivers have a lot of standing in court, they just aren't a blanket exemption from liability like some believe. Under the law of tort, prior to injury, the specific risk must have been known to and appreciated by the plaintiff in order for primary assumption of risk to apply. Liability waivers serve to establish that the risk was known and appreciated. For instance in CA > Releases and waivers of liability are usually enforced in California. They are considered contracts that, if properly drafted and executed, are recognized as valid agreements that limit your rights. > There are four ways to challenge the validity and binding effects of a release or waiver of liability: > ... Gross negligence or recklessness: The California Supreme Court recently held that releases are valid only to protect defendants from being sued for negligence. They are invalid if you can prove that the other party's conduct was more than negligent, e.g., gross negligence or recklessness. https://archive.ph/20120911003148/http://www.sports-injury-lawyer.com/PracticeAreas/Attacking-Waiver-of-Liability.asp#selection-230.0-230.2 https://archive.ph/20120911003148/http://www.sports-injury-l...
  - ramesh31 3y ago
    >... Gross negligence or recklessness: The California Supreme Court recently held that releases are valid only to protect defendants from being sued for negligence. They are invalid if you can prove that the other party's conduct was more than negligent, e.g., gross negligence or recklessness. That's the key here. Regardless of acceptance of risk, gross negligence cannot be excused. If this were a legit operation using a certified vessel, we'd be having an entirely different conversation. But what Rush was doing is the very definition of recklessness.
    - voxic11 3y ago
      We don't know for sure yet why the sub imploded. Its still possible that it was due to some design or manufacturing defect no one foresaw, in which case recklessness would not apply. But I agree it most likely imploded due to one of the design defects that Oceangate was warned about and recklessly ignored.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > There are four ways to challenge the validity and binding effects of a release or waiver of liability: You only include gross negligence/recklessness, but two of the others also potentially would apply here (jurisdictional issues aside): * Fraud or misrepresentations, and * Products liability: A valid release does not prevent you from pursing a case against the designer, manufacturer or distributor of a defective product.
    - voxic11 3y ago
      Yeah the products liability one is especially interesting. > Under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff merely needs to prove: - the defendant manufactured, distributed, or supplied a product; - the product was defective; - the defect caused injury to the plaintiff; and - as a result, the plaintiff sustained damages.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      The second is why I think Spencer Composites is in big trouble.
- ilamont 3y ago
  There are primarily two requirements that must be followed in order to maintain corporate protection: 1) The Rule of the Prudent Person. Board members are trusted individuals and this protection is provided as it is assumed that the board member will act reasonably for the best interest of the business. The prudent person rule essentially states that board members are protected from personal liability as long as they act “as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar conditions”. So basically, if your peers would think you acted contrary to your duty, then the protection may not be available. 2) Duty of Loyalty. As a board member, conflicts of interest should be avoided. Therefore, the protection otherwise provided may not be there if actions or decisions are made to benefit yourself instead of the business. Commonly, this occurs when a board member votes in favor of an action to provide himself or his family with financial gain or support a business venture he owns. Keep in mind, while financial gain is a typical motive, it is not required to breach the duty of loyalty. https://bgswlaw.com/incorporation-personal-liability-protection/ https://bgswlaw.com/incorporation-personal-liability-protect...
- xeromal 3y ago
  My favorite waiver is the one on big dump trucks that say "Not responsible for rock damage". What a huge lie. lol
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  Yeah, you can have a waiver for inherently risky activities. You can't have a waiver for your recklessness in dealing with risks.

by LanceH 3y ago

ramesh31 3y ago

>I keep seeing articles being pushed that the victim's families have no case. But with the whistleblower lawsuit, the conversations and tweets, the CEO seems to have just skipped engineering warnings and worked harder at convincing people. He convinced people that dangers he knew of weren't dangers. I don't think that can get waivered Liability waivers have approximately zero standing in court. It's just something the defense can hold up and say "look, they were warned!". It doesn't legally absolve you of any liability whatsoever, and any jury is highly unlikely to be sympathetic to the defendant here. OceanGate as a company effectively ceased to exist the moment this happened. Most likely their assets will be liquidated, and whatever's left will be a court battle with insurance companies for years to come.

voxic11 3y ago
Liability waivers have a lot of standing in court, they just aren't a blanket exemption from liability like some believe. Under the law of tort, prior to injury, the specific risk must have been known to and appreciated by the plaintiff in order for primary assumption of risk to apply. Liability waivers serve to establish that the risk was known and appreciated. For instance in CA > Releases and waivers of liability are usually enforced in California. They are considered contracts that, if properly drafted and executed, are recognized as valid agreements that limit your rights. > There are four ways to challenge the validity and binding effects of a release or waiver of liability: > ... Gross negligence or recklessness: The California Supreme Court recently held that releases are valid only to protect defendants from being sued for negligence. They are invalid if you can prove that the other party's conduct was more than negligent, e.g., gross negligence or recklessness. https://archive.ph/20120911003148/http://www.sports-injury-lawyer.com/PracticeAreas/Attacking-Waiver-of-Liability.asp#selection-230.0-230.2 https://archive.ph/20120911003148/http://www.sports-injury-l...
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >... Gross negligence or recklessness: The California Supreme Court recently held that releases are valid only to protect defendants from being sued for negligence. They are invalid if you can prove that the other party's conduct was more than negligent, e.g., gross negligence or recklessness. That's the key here. Regardless of acceptance of risk, gross negligence cannot be excused. If this were a legit operation using a certified vessel, we'd be having an entirely different conversation. But what Rush was doing is the very definition of recklessness.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    We don't know for sure yet why the sub imploded. Its still possible that it was due to some design or manufacturing defect no one foresaw, in which case recklessness would not apply. But I agree it most likely imploded due to one of the design defects that Oceangate was warned about and recklessly ignored.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > There are four ways to challenge the validity and binding effects of a release or waiver of liability: You only include gross negligence/recklessness, but two of the others also potentially would apply here (jurisdictional issues aside): * Fraud or misrepresentations, and * Products liability: A valid release does not prevent you from pursing a case against the designer, manufacturer or distributor of a defective product.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    Yeah the products liability one is especially interesting. > Under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff merely needs to prove: - the defendant manufactured, distributed, or supplied a product; - the product was defective; - the defect caused injury to the plaintiff; and - as a result, the plaintiff sustained damages.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    The second is why I think Spencer Composites is in big trouble.
ilamont 3y ago
There are primarily two requirements that must be followed in order to maintain corporate protection: 1) The Rule of the Prudent Person. Board members are trusted individuals and this protection is provided as it is assumed that the board member will act reasonably for the best interest of the business. The prudent person rule essentially states that board members are protected from personal liability as long as they act “as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar conditions”. So basically, if your peers would think you acted contrary to your duty, then the protection may not be available. 2) Duty of Loyalty. As a board member, conflicts of interest should be avoided. Therefore, the protection otherwise provided may not be there if actions or decisions are made to benefit yourself instead of the business. Commonly, this occurs when a board member votes in favor of an action to provide himself or his family with financial gain or support a business venture he owns. Keep in mind, while financial gain is a typical motive, it is not required to breach the duty of loyalty. https://bgswlaw.com/incorporation-personal-liability-protection/ https://bgswlaw.com/incorporation-personal-liability-protect...
xeromal 3y ago
My favorite waiver is the one on big dump trucks that say "Not responsible for rock damage". What a huge lie. lol
LorenPechtel 3y ago
Yeah, you can have a waiver for inherently risky activities. You can't have a waiver for your recklessness in dealing with risks.