Should OceanGate now be sued because of negligence?

[Tommy Tainant]

I read something on this. The agreement they sign before going on board covers a whole lot of crap and something like this is extremely hazardous even if all goes well. The article seemed to indicate that a successful victory in court was very unlikely and that it may be virtually impossible to prove negligence because it would be very hard to prove exactly what did actually go wrong in order to prove negligence.

The fact that it didnt come back indicates negligence of some sort.

 

[Papageorgio]

And it's integrity.
Lawyers will go after that, there are reports, the owner was warned about the cracks and integrity of the sub.

That would make sense, I find it hard to beIieve that anyone would step onto the sub if they knew about that.

 

[Papageorgio]

The fact that it didnt come back indicates negligence of some sort.

But couldn’t it be argued that with any mission this dangerous, there are inherent risks involved and if they were properly informed, there can be no inferred negligence?

 

[Dadoalex]

Should OceanGate now be sued because of negligence?

I'm pretty sure the waivers everyone signed will block any lawsuits.

Rightly so.
Like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, the thrill is not worth the risk.

 

[Independent thinker]

The fact that it didnt come back indicates negligence of some sort.

LOL. So, you're saying that when they sign off on the dangers it is really nothing but a worthless piece of paper because if it doesn't come back, someone was negligent.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

That would make sense, I find it hard to be.I eve that anyone would step onto the sub if they knew about that.

I know I wouldn't.
Wasn't certified, cracks that were reported.
That's negligence.
12,500 ft. is a long way.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

LOL. So, you're saying that when they sign off on the dangers it is really nothing but a worthless piece of paper because if it doesn't come back, someone was negligent.

Well I voted that they shouldnt be sued. But there is obviously a design fault with the sub that increased the risk. The billionaires were aware of that,
Regulation is much derided but it saves lives.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

But couldn’t it be argued that with any mission this dangerous, there are inherent risks involved and if they were properly informed, there can be no inferred negligence?

Yes. The danger was priced in. There must be a dumb award for folk who dive in an unregulated sub..

 

[Papageorgio]

I know I wouldn't.
Wasn't certified, cracks that were reported.
That's negligence.
12,500 ft. is a long way.

Lawsuits will be filed, not sure what anyone knew, I just know, I’m not that rich but I am also not the dumb to go that far under water.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yes. The danger was priced in. There must be a dumb award for folk who dive in an unregulated sub..

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes. The danger was priced in. There must be a dumb award for folk who dive in an unregulated sub..

Darwin would be happy as his theory is proven again.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Lawsuits will be filed, not sure what anyone knew, I just know, I’m not that rich but I am also not the dumb to go that far under water.

I wouldn't have trusted it going down to the Edmund Fitzgerald wreck (530 ft) with cracks, even hairline .

 

[justoffal]

Should OceanGate now be sued because of negligence?

Given that many other services have run the same type of venture using certified inspection processes and large engineering staffs to constantly verify that the vehicle was safe for the depth and the mission I would say that ocean gate is demonstrably negligent here.

 

[justoffal]

Darwin would be happy as his theory is proven again.

Even if it was done in international waters a vendor of such services should not be allowed to sell them to people who don't have a technical background in engineering. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of mechanical engineering would run away from that thing in horror. Previously successful trips even to the Mariana trench we're always supported by large teams of technicians and engineers.

The ridiculous thought that somebody could shoe string a service that regularly dives to those depths without a strong support staff is totally insane.

Jo

 

[JoeB131]

And the company will be billed for the rescue effort too.

That I would agree with.

As for the five people who died, they probably all signed waivers.

 

[Leo123]

Pretty difficult making a submersible that can hold five people and go 12,000 feet deep! Worse, it was shaped like a cylinder. Most bathys are spherical for good reason.

Just heard that the view port was only rated for 1300 meters. The Titanic lies at 4,000 meters.

 

[justoffal]

Just heard that the view port was only rated for 1300 feet.

WHAT???? That's insane....
That's probably what happened. Anyone who knew that is guilty of manslaughter....or worse.

 

[toobfreak]

Just heard that the view port was only rated for 1300 feet.

I thought it was more like 3800 feet, but no matter. A guy warned them and they told them to shut up, they know what they are doing. Sub imploded to dust at the speed of a camera shutter. About 1/50th of a second.

 

[Leo123]

I thought it was more like 3800 feet, but no matter. A guy warned them and they told them to shut up, they know what they are doing. Sub imploded to dust at the speed of a camera shutter. About 1/50th of a second.

Sorry edited the post, the view port was rated at 1,300 meters but they were descending to 4,000 meters.

 

[justoffal]

I thought it was more like 3800 feet, but no matter. A guy warned them and they told them to shut up, they know what they are doing. Sub imploded to dust at the speed of a camera shutter. About 1/50th of a second.

There is no excuse for not doing a structure check before every dive.... That kind of force gradually changes the materials.