obmij
Well-Known Member
I don't know all of the details but I suspect that on a different day the verdict may have been different, especially with regards to his friend. I also suspect that they didn't have great representation, if any. They were jobbing for £100 and high court liability trials are ruinously expensive so I doubt they had a phalanx of marine lawyers on their side whereas the other side probably did.
What it does show is that shit rolls downhill. No matter if the instruments were goosed, or if they had had sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the vessel & systems, if if the weather was unfavourable and they had been told to 'just get it there'..when things go wrong no-one is your mate and that handshake means nothing.
Another frequently used expression - things are OK until they're not. A decision you make 100 times for practical and reasonable purposes with no adverse effects suddenly looks like absolute negligence when things go wrong.
Maybe this isn't appropriate for the OP - but I would advise anyone involved in the marine industry in whatever capacity to have someone watch their back. I personally am a member of Nautilus.
What it does show is that shit rolls downhill. No matter if the instruments were goosed, or if they had had sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the vessel & systems, if if the weather was unfavourable and they had been told to 'just get it there'..when things go wrong no-one is your mate and that handshake means nothing.
Another frequently used expression - things are OK until they're not. A decision you make 100 times for practical and reasonable purposes with no adverse effects suddenly looks like absolute negligence when things go wrong.
Maybe this isn't appropriate for the OP - but I would advise anyone involved in the marine industry in whatever capacity to have someone watch their back. I personally am a member of Nautilus.