Senior Smart Aleck
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Thanked 70 Times in 65 Posts
Rep Power: 7
Re: Bounty Lawsuit Filed
The gist of the matter for SailNet members, paragraphs 40 and 41:
"40. Not only was the decision to go to sea with this wooden boat – originally
built as a movie prop – reckless, but so too was the two hour notice given to the crew. There was
no time to allow them to grasp the full implications of the storm, or to confer with family, friends
or knowledgeable individuals. Nonetheless, and because the entire crew- excepting Mate
Svendsen - trusted Walbridge implicitly– all agreed to make the voyage. The crew, for the most
part, lacked adequate experience to comprehend the perils of the seas that awaited
as seen in Exhs. 2, 3 & 4 which show their maritime experiences:
a. Ten crewmembers (63%) had been aboard Bounty for less than 8 months,
b. Six of those had never been aboard any other tall ship -including 3rd mate Cleveland.
c. 2nd mate Sanders had one summer’s experience as a summer intern, and no other tall ship
d. Nine crewmembers had never sailed on another tall ship.
e. The engineer, Barksdale, had a total of 4 days sea time on Bounty and had no experience
or training whatsoever on marine diesel engines or generators.
f. The average total tall-ship experience for a deckhand was 1 year. The average Bounty
experience for a deckhand was six months.
41. Captain Walbridge, who was focused on the rewards lying at St. Petersburg,
recklessly ignored SANDY’S size, scope and intensity. He also grossly overestimated, to the
point of recklessness, BOUNTY’S seaworthiness and overestimated his professional
seamanship and weather forecasting abilities to the point of arrogant hubris."