Originally Posted by Roger Long
A key issue was whether there was any communication between owner and Master. Admiralty law, as far as I know, protects the owner from decisions made by the Captain as long as there is no communication and the owner does not participate in the decision.
The legal defense will probably be:
1) The ship wasn't perfect but was legal and adequate for what she was doing aside from heading into a hurricane.
2) Wallbridge took off without consultation before the owner could do anything to stop him and recall was fruitless. The haste with which he left works in the owner's favor here.
Phone records are going to play a big role in this case which promises to be as interesting as the Arias trial to people more interested in marine events than KY Jelly.
Normally, I would expect a settlement in the blink of an eye but I suspect that the mother wants more than money from this. A settlement would almost certainly prevent her from ever speaking about it again.
This seems quite logical to me. Unless it is proven that the owner made pressure over Wallbridge to sail against his best judgement.
I saw that commented as a possibility but I did not saw a shred of evidence that supported that. In fact what I saw was the organization and the owner supporting Wallbridge decisions as a Captain.
James Wilson, as a lawyer can you comment this, I mean the possibility of a owner to be liable by the bad decisions of a captain?
I know that in some cases this is possible, like for instance when an ecological disaster happen by a captain's error.
By the way Rodger, go to the interesting sailboat thread and look at the last movie I posted there. I bet you are going to like