Suits to move ahead in deadly boat fire off Ventura coast
The federal judge hearing lawsuits over the boat fire that killed 34 people off the Santa Barbara County coast has rejected the boat owners’ attempt to quash the suits, but is reserving judgment on the application of laws that would limit damages for the victims’ families.
The scuba diving boat Conception caught fire off Santa Cruz Island on Sept. 2 while all six crew members were asleep. Five of them were able to jump into the water and were rescued by a nearby ship, but one crew member and all 33 passengers were killed.
The boat’s owners, Glen and Dana Fritzler, and their company, Truth Aquatics, immediately went to court to invoke an 1851 federal law that would virtually eliminate their liability if they could show they had acted prudently and had no reason to suspect any dangerous conditions. That claim remains unresolved, but as relatives of the victims file their own suits, the owners are trying to limit their impact.
In one court filing, the owners’ lawyers argued
that a passenger whose relative has sued them “knew or should have known of the risks and hazards inherent in being a passenger ... and therefore knowingly assumed those risks.” That argument, which if successful could have led to dismissal of all the suits, was rejected by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson of Los Angeles.
Past rulings make it clear that “assumption of risk is not a valid defense” in cases arising at sea, Anderson said Wednesday.
The Fritzlers also cited a 1920 federal law, the Death on the High Seas Act, that allows victims’ families to recover damages only for their economic losses, such as financial support and funeral costs. It does not provide compensation for emotional harms, such as loss of love, care and companionship, which are available in most wrongfuldeath suits. It also bars punitive damages.
The 1920 law applies only to accidents at least 3 miles from shore, while the Conception was anchored barely 100 yards offshore when it caught fire. But the boat owners argued that the Supreme Court had applied the same principle to all maritime cases in its 1990 Miles ruling, which limited damages in suits by crew members injured or killed by vessels that were not seaworthy.
Federal appeals courts have differed on the meaning of the ruling. Anderson said Wednesday he “cannot determine at this stage in the litigation” whether the Conception suits are similarly limited, and would await further arguments and evidence.
On another issue, the judge said punitive damages, if available, could be awarded under federal law if the evidence showed a likelihood of “gross negligence” or “callous disregard for the rights of others” by the owners, rather than a more demanding standard set by California law.
John Hillsman, a lawyer for the family member in the case, said Friday that federal law would clearly limit damages for relatives of the dead crew member, but should not restrict suits by the passengers’ relatives. But he acknowledged it was a “complex and controversial issue” that would not be resolved quickly.
The case “has become bareknuckles,” Hillsman said, citing the owners’ preemptive suit filed in the days after the fire. He also said families have until July 1 to file their claims with the court.
A lawyer for the boat owners declined to comment on the ruling.