Saving Capt. Schroeder

And sometimes ships sink and captain and crew drown. But that doesn't really make a difference for the standards of due diligence required.

 

Ragusa, all I can say is be very careful if you go on a cruise in the future. In all seriousness though, due the the catastrophic nature of maritime accidents it becomes vital the ship's master is completely prepared for any and all forseeable problems (that includes mechanical failure, failure of GPS and weather).

I find it really surprising that, for the most part, the same people who crucified Hazelton came to the rescue of Schroeder. Captain Hazelton left a well trained, qualified and experienced ship driver at the helm -- his third mate. The captain got the ship underway and safely into the traffic channel and turned the conn over to the third mate. He then went to his cabin, had a nightcap and went to bed (it was late). It was the job of the third mate to conn (drive) the ship during specific shifts when at sea and to load cargo in port. The third mate made a turn a little early (about two miles) in spite of having navigated the waters many times before and didn't notice his error for several miles. The third mate never called the captain when he turned the ship (as he was supposed to), nor did he call the captain when he realized he was out of position (as he was required to do).

Captain Hazelton did not realize there was anything wrong until he was woken by the Exxon Valdez running aground. By your inferences -- Captain Hazelton did nothing wrong. There was no gross negligence and no error on his part. Yet he was hounded by the press, villified by every environmental group in existence (and Hollywood), and was the first person in the history of the US to be extradited for a misdemeanor (and received the maximum punishment for it). His ship did not kill anyone, he was not even on the bridge when the accident happened -- Schroeder was.

Hazelton deserved to be punished. He did not ensure his third mate was properly rested and able to adequately conn the ship. Hazelton should have taken that first shift. Schroeder deserved punishment as well, he was not adequately prepared to ensure his ship was not a danger.

Having lived a significant portion of my life at sea I believe there is cause to hold ship's masters to higher standards than pilots and even doctors. The risks are too great to do otherwise.

 

The risk of a surgeon's scalpel slipping is IMO quite significant. And so is the risk of a pilot's mishandling of his mashine. You see, I concede ships are complex mashines, that require significant care and foresight and precautions. But in that respect the naval profession is not at all different than the other two examples.

I don't hope you ever need to, but you should be grateful for the way the judge interpreted the law sensibly. Quite seriously.

If simple negligience - the term is IMO dangerous with the associations it invokes - can bring you to 'jail', what does that help? Negligience is also slipping and spilling coffee on your computer, or a colleagues dress, or Queen Elisabeth's cleavage, or the navigation controls of a cruise ship. Oops. One should take care where one walks, especially with a cup of coffee in the hand. But is that sufficient as a reason to put someone in jail? You don't need to be an irresponsible fool to be negligient. It can happen very easily, despite your best efforts.

However, simple negligience is sufficient for compensation. That is a comfort for potential casualties or their relatives. And don't forget that in the US there are as dangerous tools as 'punitive damage' around.

You overlook one more thing: Capt. Schroeder was at work. He was working for his company. He wasn't on a joyride. Yes, he was earning his salary. But primarily he was earning his company profits - that is the only reason why he has a salary.
When you operate mashinery, there is an inherent risk of accidents. As I said, **** happens. After German civil law, when an employee causes some damage or harm, it is standard procedure that in cases of simple negligience the company pays for all damages. If it is gross negligience the employee will have to contribute, which can be very hard. In cases of intent the company is free and the employee pays full.

I think that is very sensible arrangement that takes into account the nature of work. The idea is that those who benefit most, the employers, can't simply dump all personal responsibility on the employee, and so rid themselves of the risk of their business. That wouldn't be exactly fair.

 

Hmm, I'm guessing we should send this verdict over to the British that are looking to prosecute the American pilots who shot up their troops.

 

Individual families (and their lawyers) are looking to prosecute - which is something to be expected as we, as a nation, are joining the "sue everyone" mentality.
I haven't seen anything else reported about the "British" as a nation wanting to do it (Barmy notwithstanding). What pisses us off is the number of our own soldiers that say they fear their US counterparts more than they fear the enemy.