Call Us +1-800-338-1441 (Toll Free)
Jones Act seafarers ought to act quickly to protect their claims arising out of the collision between the tanker vessel m/t STENA IMMACULATE and Portuguese freighter m/v SOLONG, owned by German company Reederei Koepping, in the North sea near Hull in East Yorkshire, England, UK on March 10, 2025. Because the tanker was chartered by Crowley Shipping, a division of Crowley Maritime that is headquartered in Florida and incorporated in Delaware, the Jones Act seafarers employed by Crowley could sue their employer in Florida, Delaware or any place in the United States where Crowley and the mariner’s contacts were sufficiently strong. Yet, what about the responsibility of the SOLONG? Will its liability be decided in the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal or the United States? Probably various claims and litigation will arise in more than one country and likely each vessel’s interests now has begun thinking about how to manage the claims or lawsuits, possibly through one or two coordinated legal actions addressing all claims at once. Were Crowley able to secure jurisdiction over the vessel or its owner or its operator in the United States, a direct legal control could be through the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, codified as 46 U.S.C. § 30523. Such a proceeding would allow the Jones Act seafarers to put their claims against their employer, the owner or owner pro hac vice of the STENA IMMACULATE and against the owners and operators of the SOLONG into a single legal action while also enabling Crowley to address its own damage claims against the SOLONG and its interests. Nevertheless, it appears that the collision occurred in English waters and the admiralty jurisdiction of the United Kingdom will be the situs of litigation. Crowley might take a tactical move of preemptively reaching out to the inured seafarers it employed, obtaining quick settlements that would allow Crowley to seek indemnity (reimbursement) from the SOLLANO interests.
One of the most stimulating aspects of litigating the maritime law is the prevalence of judge-made law(case law). Another feature is encountering foolish acts by recreational boat operators doing things they would not dream of doing when driving a vehicle or riding a bike. Recently viral was a video of a whale breaching then slamming down upon a boat that got too close off Rye, New Hampshire. No one hurt there. However, Berschler Associates, PC recently achieved justice for a passenger severely injured when the driver of the speedboat decided it would be fun to initiate a ”sideshow,” doing donuts in the water. A key feature of this case was the issue of punitive damage exposure. Could our client punish the driver financially for being reckless? Under state law, our client would have to prove malice to support punitive damages. “malice” in state law requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s tortious wrong amounted to “despicable conduct” and that such despicable conduct was carried on with a “willful and conscious disregard” of the rights or safety of others. (Civil Code section 3294(c)(1); College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 725.) Berschler Associates avoided that “dead end”: by invoking the General Maritime Law (“GML”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C., §133(1) [The “Savings to Suitors” clause allowing state courts jurisdiction to try certain maritime claims.] In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker , 554 U.S. 471 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the long history of punitive damage being available under the GML. Our client’s challenge was to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the driver was indeed reckless, not merely negligent. We have a video clip of the boat at speed and knew of its make and model from which we obtained specifications of build and performance from the manufacturer. Using these, our expert was able to “reverse engineer” to determine speeds, turning radius and G-forces. As seen in the diagram below, we established the speedboat was traveling 49.6 mph when it hit a wake of another boat also “donuting” in unison. The G-force created was ~4.9 upon the passengers, one of whom was thrown into our client. Reckless enough for you? Everyone in the case thought so, too. Success in litigation is a product of hard work and thinking outside the box.
“Act in haste. Repent at leisure.” Hon. William Congreve, 1692.
Achievement: Bookmarks on a 5-decade long Admiralty Law Career
In a traumatic experience, the typical victim goes into fight, flight, or freeze mode. A large approaching vessel pierced our client’s yacht with a long pulpit protruding from the bow which ripped through the cabin. The pulpit hit within feet of where one of our clients was standing. Thankfully, our clients were not hurt physically. However, they suffered substantial emotional injuries, which manifested later. As the vessel came careening towards their own, our two clients’ thoughts ranged from concern, to fear, to panic. One of our clients feared losing his family on board. Panicked, he tried to save them; ultimately feeling helplessness as he witnessed and felt the impact. His spouse was frozen with fear, as death loomed. In our earlier blog post, “Seattle Ferry Pier Allison,”(August 15, 2022) we wrote, “Admiralty law is more conservative in the United States on NIED standing…. [a]would-be claimant must either have suffered bodily injury as a result of the event or been in a “zone of danger”; that is to say placed in immediate risk of substantial physical harm or death. Proving the clients had been psychologically damaged became the focus of this case. After the collision, our clients began demonstrating symptoms of discrete psychological injuries including anxiety, nightmares, and depression. One of our clients had chest pains as a result of these psychological injuries. The defendant argued to minimize their injuries. We retained a forensic psychologist to document possible evidence of injuries. The expert tested and interviewed. Our expert diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Persistent Depressive Disorder (PDD). The expert concluded that our client would need future care. After over 200 hours of work, Berschler Associates, PC brought this case to trial in the U.S. District Court. The requirements to qualify for NIED were clearly presented at trial. Given the factual findings the Court made with respect to our clients, each received an award for personal injury damage. Our clients received the justice that they each deserved. This is one example of how Berschler Associates, PC gets their clients highly compensated for the hidden pain and suffering that is present in significant bodily injuries. Let Berschler Associates, PC help you recognize all of your injuries, and not just some. DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information provided, it is not intended and should not be considered as legal advice. Individual situations differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. Please contact our office if you seek more specific technical or legal advice on the information provided or related topics. Thank you.
Free Evaluation
Our depth of experience has been acknowledged by lawyers and insurance companies
throughout the United States and underwriters worldwide. Lawyers without experience in
admiralty and maritime law regularly refer cases to our firm.
The Who, What, When, and Why
Please briefly state your case facts. Be sure to include the date the incident happened.
Home_form
Contact info
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94109
+1.800.338.1441