What happens when the equipment is thrown away? What happens when the injury scene is purposefully altered? There is a rule of law regarding “spoliation” of evidence.

Spoliation of evidence is generally defined as either willfully or negligently destroying or loosing documents or objects that could be used during legal proceedings. Washington State defines spoliation as the “intentional destruction of evidence.” Inherent in this is the assumption that the party which destroyed the evidence, even if the destruction was negligent and not intentional, knew or should have known the evidence would be legally pertinent. A lack of evidence may also beg the question: Did the evidence exist in the first place?

Specific to the commercial fishing industry, the Act provides the USCG more authority to amend and clarify, regulate, and enforce safety standards. Vessel and equipment standards now are to be determined based on where the vessel operates, not on where it’s registered. The goal of these uniform standards is to ensure fairness and to simplify to application of regulations. The emphasis here is on safety, both to prevent accidents and to buy survival time while awaiting rescue. The amendments in the Act include the following:

Accepting Dana Clausen’s team of lawyers’ arguments, the Washington State Supreme Court denied Icicle Seafoods’ attempt to cap a seaman’s right to punitive damages. In Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., Case No. 85200-6, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict of 1.3 million dollars in punitive damages against Icicle. The jury found Icicle’s conduct in refusing to pay the injured seaman’s medical bills and maintenance in an amount of $35,000 to be willful, wanton and malicious conduct, and that it was financially motivated. The Court rejected Icicle’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Exxon Valdez case required that there be a one-to-one ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages. The Washington Supreme Court stated the policy and purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter egregious conduct and rejected Icicle’s argument that punitive damages should be capped based upon the size of the underlying claim. The Court noted that, because of Icicle’s conduct, Clausen, who had suffered a back injury in a lifting accident aboard Icicle’s vessel, had been forced into poverty and was forced to move into a broken down wreck of a travel trailer while trying to live on just a $20 a day living allowance.

In 2006, Captain Kevin Murray was working heavy weather as a Columbia River Bar Pilot when he fell in a similar transfer, losing his life. Investigation into Captain Murray’s death in a subsequent maritime wrongful death claim brought by Beard Stacey & Jacobsen revealed a number of deficiencies in the Columbia River Bar Pilots’ training and procedures. Columbia River Bar pilots now vigorously train in search and rescue procedures. The cause of Capt. Dempsey’s accident will be investigated by the Columbia River Bar Pilots, as well as probably the United States Coast Guard and the NTSB.

The LADY CECELIA is a 62-foot dragger owned by Dave Kent of Bay City, Oregon. Few details are known about the vessel at this time other than it was first registered in Oregon in 1991. Under Federal Regulations, vessels such as the Lady Cecelia are required to carry regularly serviced life rafts and survival suits, and crews are required to regularly be trained in safety procedures. Unfortunately, safety inspections of vessels such as the Lady Cecilia are not mandated by regulation.

Complicated Federal Maritime laws govern remedies available to families of crewmen lost in fishing accidents. Frequently, vessel owners utilize an archaic law called the Limitation of Liability Act to attempt to limit compensation available to the families of lost crew.

In 2009, Combined Anti-piracy Task Force 151 (CTF 151) was formed to combat the increasing boldness of the pirates. CTF 151 is an international force which has been commanded by members of various navies from 25 countries, including the U.S., Pakistan, Turkey, South Korea, and New Zealand. The mission of CTF 151 is to protect shipping lanes from piracy and to restore freedom of navigation and legitimate maritime commerce.

In Fuszek v. Royal King Fisheries, Inc., 98 F.3d 514 (1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a seaman is entitled to full damages, and not subject to reduced damages for comparative negligence, when the employer violates U.S. Coast Guard regulation. In Mr. Fuszek’s case, the question was not whether the machine was guarded, for all admitted and agreed that it was not guarded. The question was whether Mr. Fuszek’s award for damages should be diminished due to what the defendants claimed was Mr. Fuszek’s comparative negligence.

NMCRS case workers are trained to address the specific financial needs of service members, veterans, as well as their eligible families and survivors. NMCRS services include student loans or grants, interest-free emergency loans or grants, and financial counseling at no charge. A number of NMCRS offices also run thrift shops and have visiting nurse programs. If you would like to learn more about NMCRS, please visit www.nmcrs.org.

A cruise ship ticket is also known as a “cruise ticket contract.” What makes a contract valid are four points: offer, acceptance, free will to enter the contract relationship, and equitable consideration. Those entering a contract are assumed to be aware of and in agreement with the contract details, and a court will usually uphold a contract which has met all the legal criteria. The exchange of consideration, such as exchanging money for a cruise ticket, touches on all four points of a valid contractual agreement between parties. The cruise ticket contract wording, in what most of us would call the fine print, is said to be on the ticket and is otherwise accessible to passengers. On the Costa web site, passengers are encouraged to read their cruise ticket contract. By purchasing the ticket, a passenger has arguably entered a contract and agreed to the conditions therein, which include a series of limitations and waivers in case of dispute. It does state that Costa will be liable for its negligence. The caveat is, any negligence must be proven by the claimant in court.

Year - Fatalities per 100,000
2010 - 116
2009 - 200
2008 - 129
2007 - 112
2006 - 141
2005 - 118.

According to NTSB data, the death rate averaged 158 per 100,000 between 1992 to 2008 for the fishing industry, whereas the national work fatality average for that time period was four deaths in 100,000. Recognition of this unconscionable death rate, as well as the high rate of non-fatal injuries, and the financial and emotional costs involved in work-related death or injury has driven a focus on better fishing-related safety.