Yes, it is possible to sue a submarine tour operator civilly if there are grounds for a legal claim. At the outset, as will be discussed, Titan was technically a submersible, not a true submarine. The specific jurisdiction where a submarine accident lawsuit can be filed against a submarine tour operator depends on various factors. One of them is the location of the incident, the jurisdiction where the operator is based or operates, and any contractual agreements or terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties involved.

Typically, a wrongful death lawsuit would be filed in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred or where the tour operator is based. Crew members might also have additional rights under the Jones Act, but cases like this are always a real legal battle. This could be the country or state where the tour took place or where the tour operator’s headquarters are located. Here, prior lawsuits against the sub-company were filed in Washington State Court. For brevity, our submersible accident lawyers will assume that is the venue and jurisdiction.

It’s important to consult with a maritime lawyer specializing in admiralty/maritime personal injury law to determine the appropriate jurisdiction and assess the viability of a civil lawsuit against a submarine tour operator based on the case’s specific circumstances. In the case at the bar, we know the Titan (tethered to a mother ship) typically spends about 10 to 11 hours during each trip to the Titanic wreck, while the Navy and other submarines can stay underwater for months. There is evidence the CEO was “woke” and hired less experienced crew since the more experienced retired US Navy sub captains were “white” and therefore not “inspirational.”

What is a Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

The emotional trauma of losing a loved one due to carelessness or intentional lies is something that cannot be swept under the rug during a press conference. No regulatory body can bring your loved ones back to life. And past court documents indicate there were safety issues raising a lot of eyebrows. A wrongful death lawsuit in a submersible vessel case is a legal claim brought by the surviving family members or the estate of a person who died as a result of a submersible vessel accident or incident.

This type of lawsuit seeks to hold responsible parties financially accountable for their negligence, recklessness, or wrongful actions when someone is killed. Our wrongful death attorneys have experience in unique, unexplored areas of maritime law, and Michael Ehline helped draft portions of the Cruise Ship Safety Act on behalf of International Cruise Victims (ICV). In the case at bar, five people who died will likely have survivors. Many are probably in the hospital from the grief and intense emotional distress from this catastrophic loss they now face.

In a wrongful death lawsuit involving a submersible vessel, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) typically needs to establish the following elements:

1. Negligence or wrongful conduct: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the party or parties responsible for the submersible vessel, such as the vessel operator, owner, manufacturer, or maintenance personnel, acted negligently or wrongfully. This can include failure to maintain the vessel properly, inadequate safety measures, equipment malfunction, operator error, or other forms of negligence or misconduct.
2. Causation: The plaintiff must show a direct causal link between negligence or wrongful conduct and the death of the individual. It needs to be established that the actions or omissions of the responsible party directly resulted in the fatal incident.
3. Damages: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they have suffered specific damages as a result of the death. These damages can include medical and funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of companionship, emotional distress, and other related losses.

Wrongful death lawsuits involving submersible vessels can be complex due to the technical nature of the equipment and the unique circumstances surrounding underwater operations. It may involve investigating the cause of the incident, assessing the vessel’s maintenance records, evaluating safety protocols, and determining liability among multiple parties.

As laws and regulations governing submersible vessels can vary by jurisdiction, consulting with an attorney experienced in maritime law or wrongful death cases related to submersible vessels is crucial. They can provide guidance on the specific legal requirements, potential liable parties, and the legal process involved in pursuing a wrongful death lawsuit in such cases.

Missing Submersible Found in the North Atlantic

Overview:

• Five passengers aboard a submersible named Titan in the North Atlantic were the subject of an international search.
• OceanGate owned the imploded vessel and was specifically designed for exploring the wreckage site of the Titanic.
• Authorities estimated less than two days’ worth of oxygen remained in the submersible at that time and spent enormous resources trying to save the lives aboard.
• US Navy now says oxygen would not have mattered, as they used sound equipment to verify the sub-imploded that Sunday, making the search for life unnecessary. “That anomaly was “consistent with an implosion or explosion in the general vicinity of where the TITAN submersible was operating when communications were lost,” according to a senior Navy official.”

Missing Submersible: Rescuers Race to Find Titan after Detecting Underwater Noises

When and where did the vessel go missing?

• The 21-foot vessel, named Titan, lost communication with its control center on that same Sunday morning, approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes into its scheduled dive.
• The U.S. Coast Guard reported the incident on Twitter and stated that the communication failure occurred around 435 miles (380 nautical miles) south of St. John’s in Newfoundland, close to the site of the famous Titanic shipwreck.
• Despite the US Navy acoustic ‘anomaly’ that Sunday, the search went on till it was later determined on June 22, 2023, that all hands were lost on June 18, 2023.

Why was the submersible diving?

• The missing vessel, owned by OceanGate, was conducting underwater voyages to explore the remains of the Titanic on the seafloor.
• OceanGate, based in Washington state, is known for its chronicling of the Titanic’s decay and previously shared a full-size digital scan of the wreck site.
• The company also offers deep-sea tourism experiences, taking adventurers on eight-day tours to explore the depths of the ocean for a fee of $250,000 per person.
• OceanGate has been sued before, and there is evidence that Titan was unfit for its particular deep-sea use.

Who was on board?

• The submersible, Titan, carried one pilot and four paid passengers referred to as “mission specialists,” according to the U.S. Coast Guard.
• Among the paid passengers was British businessman Hamish Harding, known for holding multiple Guinness World Records.
• Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman, members of a prominent Pakistani family known for investing, were also on board.
• Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French Titanic expert and director for RMS Titanic Inc., the U.S. company with salvage rights to the Titanic site, was present as well.
• OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush was the submersible pilot and used a video game controller to pilot the vessel.

Why did the vessel go missing?

• The exact reason for the submersible losing communication with its control crew remains unclear.
• Before the expedition, OceanGate stated they would rely on the satellite-based internet company Starlink for communication during the mission.
• Normally, the Titan uses a text-message-based system that relies on underwater acoustic positioning to communicate with the control ship.
• The submersible is equipped with basic emergency medical supplies and 96 hours of life support, according to OceanGate’s website.

Search Efforts and Latest Updates

• A unified command of the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, Canadian Coast Guard, and OceanGate coordinated search efforts which, as noted, located a debris field of the wreckage days ago.
• The search has ended with all hands lost, and hopes that 40 hours of oxygen left, had perhaps kept the crew alive, were lost.
• Canadian Coast Guard vessels and additional private vessels were also dispatched to the scene.
• Search teams are used aircraft, sonar devices, acoustic monitoring, and a remotely operated vehicle to scan the ocean surface, detect underwater sounds, and explore lower depths.
• Hauling the submersible to the surface would have posed a significant challenge due to its potential depth and distance offshore if it had been located.
• Despite the extensive search efforts involving expert personnel, the odds of survival for those on board are estimated to be around 1%.
• Previously, OceanGate has experienced difficulties locating the Titanic wreck during expeditions, often due to factors such as bad weather and mechanical issues.

Former OceanGate Employee Raises Safety Concerns

The tourist submersible that went missing while exploring the Titanic wreck was previously the target of safety complaints from an employee of OceanGate. This parent company owns the sub and runs tourist expeditions of the wreck. That employee complained specifically that the sub could not descend to such extreme depths before he was fired.

Legal Documents Reveal Safety Concerns and Wrongful Termination Allegations

According to legal documents obtained by The New Republic, in a 2018 case, OceanGate employee David Lochridge, a submersible pilot, voiced concerns about the safety of the sub. Lochridge, who was the director of marine operations at the time, was responsible for the safety of all crew and clients.

The concerns Lochridge voiced came to light as part of a breach of contract case related to his refusal to approve manned tests of the early models of the submersible due to safety concerns. Subsequently, Lochridge was fired, and OceanGate sued him for disclosing confidential information about the Titan submersible. In response, Lochridge filed a compulsory counterclaim alleging wrongful termination as a whistleblower regarding the quality and safety of the submersible.

Allegations of Termination to Silence Safety Concerns

In his counterclaim, Lochridge stated that instead of addressing his concerns about vessel safety, OceanGate terminated his employment to silence him and avoid addressing the safety and quality control issues.

According to the counterclaim:

Engineering Staff Concerns and Hostility Towards Safety Inspection

The counterclaim also detailed a meeting at OceanGate’s facility in Everett, Washington, where several individuals expressed concerns to the Engineering Director. OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush requested Lochridge to conduct a quality inspection of the Titan submersible.

During the inspection process, Lochridge encountered hostility and denial of access to necessary documentation from the Engineering Director. He was met with obstacles in obtaining information about the viewport design, pressure test results, and other crucial data.

Ignored Concerns and Lack of Non-Destructive Testing

Initially, Lochridge verbally expressed his safety and quality concerns about the Titan submersible to OceanGate’s executive management, but his concerns were ignored. Lochridge identified numerous issues that posed serious safety concerns and provided recommendations for corrective actions.

Of particular concern to Lochridge was the absence of non-destructive testing on the hull of the Titan. He was repeatedly informed that due to the hull’s thickness, it was not possible to conduct scans or tests to check for delaminations, porosity, voids, or sufficient adhesion of the glue used. OceanGate claimed there was no equipment available for such testing.

Depth Certification and Viewport Limitations

Following the issuance of Lochridge’s inspection report, a meeting took place on January 19, 2018, involving OceanGate officials, including the CEO, human resources director, engineering director, Lochridge, and the operations director.

During the meeting, Lochridge discovered that he had been denied access to viewport information because the forward viewport of the submersible was only certified for a pressure depth of 1,300 meters. However, OceanGate intended to take passengers to depths of 4,000 meters. The viewport manufacturer refused to certify the viewport for depths beyond 1,300 meters due to the experimental design supplied by OceanGate, which did not meet the Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (“PVHO”) standards. OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that met the required depth.

• The Titan submersible debris field is estimated to be scattered across the ocean floor at a depth of nearly 4,000 meters.

Passenger Ignorance and Hazardous Materials

Lochridge’s complaints revealed that paying passengers were unaware of his safety concerns or the use of hazardous, flammable materials within the submersible. Despite expressing concerns about the Titan submersible, OceanGate failed to address them, ultimately leading to Lochridge’s termination.

Settlement of Lochridge vs. OceanGate Case

View More Here https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854184-oceangate-v-david-lochridge

The case between Lochridge and OceanGate did not progress significantly and was eventually settled a few months later, bringing an end to the legal dispute once and for all. https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-faced-lawsuit-depths-safely-travel-oceangate

Legal Protection for OceanGate Amidst Missing Titan Sub Disaster

Legal experts suggest that OceanGate, the company operating the missing Titan submersible, is likely protected from future lawsuits arising from the incident. Passengers on the sub signed a waiver acknowledging the risk of death multiple times, making it challenging for them to sue OceanGate. However, operational negligence could potentially challenge the waiver’s validity as an exception to a voluntary assumption of the risk.

Limited Liability Due to Informed Assumption of Risk

According to Ehline Law Firm legal experts, OceanGate has a defense called the assumption of the risk. OceanGate will argue that the passengers willingly participated in an extremely hazardous activity and assumed significant risk. We have not seen the signed waiver and clear communication of the risk of death could mitigate the chances of successful legal action against the company. But like most things in life, there are exceptions to this rule in favor of a just outcome.

Exceptions may vary depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances of the case, as follows:

1. Gross Negligence or Recklessness: If the defendant’s actions go beyond ordinary negligence and involve gross negligence or recklessness, the assumption of the risk defense may not apply. Gross negligence refers to a severe disregard for the safety or rights of others, while recklessness involves knowingly taking unreasonable risks. In such cases, a plaintiff may still be able to pursue a claim and recover damages.
2. Failure to Warn: If the defendant failed to provide adequate warning or information about a known danger associated with the activity, the assumption of the risk defense may be weakened. Here, we don’t know if the viewport glass had been switched out, but if it was the reason the submersible exploded, plaintiffs could argue they were not fully aware of the risks involved and, therefore should not be barred from seeking compensation.
3. Statutory Violations: If the defendant violated a specific law or regulation that was designed to protect individuals from harm in a particular activity or industry, the assumption of the risk defense may be challenged. The plaintiff can argue that the defendant’s violation of the law demonstrates negligence or a breach of duty, making them liable for the resulting harm.
4. Implied Warranty of Safety: In certain situations, such as in a commercial transaction or when participating in a guided activity, there may be an implied warranty of safety. This means that the defendant implicitly assures the plaintiff that reasonable care will be taken to ensure their safety. If the defendant fails to fulfill this implied warranty, the assumption of the risk defense may not apply.

Consulting with a maritime law attorney specializing in sea-related incidents can provide survivors with more accurate and jurisdiction-specific information in their particular situations. But for our analysis, we will keep other presumptions in place.

Waiver and Informed Consent Legal Battle

Passengers aboard the Titan submersible allegedly paid $250,000 each and signed a waiver before embarking on the journey. The waiver explicitly stated the risk of death, with one former passenger stating that it was purportedly mentioned three times on the first page alone. The passengers’ informed consent and acknowledgment of those particular inherent dangers would make it challenging to hold OceanGate accountable. However, fraud vitiates consent, as would negligent misrepresentation or concealment of a fact, such as the subpar viewing glass.

Challenging the Waiver through Operational Negligence

Although OceanGate is protected by the waiver, any operational negligence or intentional fraud on its part could potentially render the waiver challengeable. Recent revelations about the company’s safety culture, including founder Stockton Rush’s remarks on safety regulations and the allegations made by a former employee, may pose legal risks if the search and rescue mission turns into a recovery operation.

Woke Comments as Admission to Cause of Implosion?

Relying on pop culture or woke companies like OceanGate and their hiring practices has caused a lot of backlash. Many on social media are asking if it would have been better to hire the “50-year-old white guys with military experience.” (Source.) Here, it appears the CEO was the pilot of the Titan submersible, so he was likely one of those 50-year-old plus white guys, making that argument a bit of an overreach.

Safety Concerns and the Former Employee Lawsuit

OceanGate has faced criticism for its safety practices, as highlighted by statements made by Stockton Rush and a lawsuit filed by a former employee, David Lochridge. Rush’s remarks and Lochridge’s claims of poor quality control and safety protocols are problematic.

Potential Challenge to the Waiver

If it can be proven that OceanGate’s negligence in design or operation caused the loss of the submersible, the waiver could be challenged. The evidence from past lawsuits and claims could undermine OceanGate’s liability waiver legal protection if they are found to be negligent in the design and operation of the submersible above or below the ocean’s surface. This could open up legal avenues for the passengers’ families to seek compensation and hold OceanGate accountable under the theory of wrongful death. https://www.yahoo.com/news/company-operates-missing-titanic-sub-003245168.html

A. Unseaworthiness Challenge?

Under general maritime law, the doctrine of seaworthiness imposes an absolute duty on a shipowner to provide a reasonably fit vessel for its intended purpose. This duty extends to all aspects of the vessel, including its equipment, crew, and operational systems. The shipowner must ensure that the vessel is in a safe and proper condition, adequately maintained, and equipped with necessary safety features. Reinhart v. U.S. (9th Cir.1972) 457 F.2d 151, 152.

That duty will extend “not only to the shipowner’s employees but to all who do seaman’s work.” Baker v. Raymond International, Inc. (5th Cir.1981) 656 F.2d 173, 181 cert. denied 456 U.S. 983 (1982) 102 S. Ct. 2256, 72 L. Ed. 2d 861. The remedy to cure unseaworthiness is for an injured seaman to apply in rem against the vessel and in personam against the vessel’s title owner, The Osceola (1903) 189 U.S. 158, 175, 23 S. Ct. 483, 487, 47 L. Ed. 760, or the actual owner pro hac vice under a demise charter. Baker, 656 F.2d at 182.

It is undisputed that the incident occurred aboard the Titan. Thus, liability for unseaworthiness depends upon the facts and outcomes of many things, including motions in limine.

B. Crew members – Jones Act Negligence

Here, the vessel commander’s surviving family could sue OceanGate since he is technically an injured seaman. So they could try and seek an additional remedy under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688) because the duty to exercise reasonable care is independent of a vessel owner’s duty to provide a seaworthy ship. Garrett v. Moore McCormack Co. (1942) 317 U.S. 239, 240 n. 2, 63 S. Ct. 246, 248 n. 2, 87 L. Ed. 239 ; Reinhart, 457 F.2d at 152. A Jones Act claim, however, can only be brought against the seaman’s employer, in this case, OceanGate. The survivors must establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship at the time of the injury. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783, 791, 69 S. Ct. 1317, 1321-22, 93 L. Ed. 1692, rhg. denied 338 U.S. 839, 70 S. Ct. 32, 94 L. Ed. 513 (1949); Baker, 656 F.2d at 177.

A court would likely consider the Captain “a seaman” in the service of the defendant’s chartered vessel. Hence, it remained under the management and control of the vessel’s owners. The Norland, 101 F.2d 967, 971 (9th Cir.1939). A time charterer merely takes over the vessel’s carrying capacity and reserves authority only as to certain business matters, such as ports touched and cargo loaded. Saridis v. S.S. Paramarina, 216 F. Supp. 794, 797 (E.D.Va. 1962).

In the context of a demise or bareboat charter, the liability for injuries to employees rests upon the charterer rather than the owner of the vessel. During a demise or bareboat charter, the charterer assumes possession, custody, and control of the vessel as if they were the owner pro hac vice, meaning for the time being. This includes taking on the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the operation of the vessel. As a result, the charterer is considered the employer of the master and crew during the charter period.

Under this arrangement, if injuries occur to employees during the charter period, the liability for those injuries would generally fall upon the charterer rather than the vessel’s owner. The charterer is responsible for providing a safe working environment, ensuring the seaworthiness of the vessel, and maintaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Norris, The Law of Seamen, § 27:24, p. 252 (4th ed. 1985).

OceanGate Apparently Classifies All Aboard As “Crew”

Here, it is noted that news reports and court documents indicate that OceanGate classifies all hands in the Titan as “Crew.” If this is legally so, it appears the Jones Act and DOHSA would also apply to the passengers and their families. How a court will rule is anyone’s guess. Each legal representative will be faced with language barriers, cultural issues, and geographic inconvenience. Zoom videos will probably be helpful if allowed by a court or special referee. The trial will likely be a media sensation if it gets that far.

Can a Crew’s Family Sue for Death of a Seaman?

Under maritime law, a family can file a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of a deceased seaman family member. Maritime law recognizes the rights of family members to seek compensation for the death of their loved one due to negligence or unseaworthiness.

The specific legal framework governing wrongful death claims in maritime cases is the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) or the Jones Act, depending on the circumstances. These laws provide remedies for surviving family members, such as spouses (husband, wife, children, grandparents) or dependent relatives, who have suffered the loss of financial support, companionship, and other damages resulting from the death of a seaman.

Yes, There Are Several Theories To Suing Under

We just saw that despite a waiver, there could be issues like a fraud that can vitiate any consent. If the court agrees, the family generally must demonstrate that the death was caused by the negligence, recklessness, or unseaworthiness of the vessel or its crew. Survivors must establish that the responsible party failed to meet the required duty of care owed to the seaman and that this failure directly led to the fatal implosion accident. Here the survivors would go after the world’s only privately owned, manned submersibles. It would likely present novel issues of law as well. Potential defendants may include interest in the sister submersible called the Cyclops (another underwater boat).

Diversity issues for courts to decide may occur, and this case could be brought in some other jurisdiction than enumerated or disclosed in a passage contract. I want to thank Reporter David Pogue for his initial expert journalism over Titan’s so-called “Jerry-Rigged” Design. I am curious to see if any plaintiffs can meet their burden of showing there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding Titan’s’ liability under the Jones Act as “crew.” If you have any more information about the story or want to learn more, contact personal injury attorney Michael Ehline by using our convenient online contact us form.

Citations:

• Reuters. (2023, June 22). Titanic sub-victims’ families could still sue despite liability waivers. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/titanic-sub-victims-families-could-still-sue-despite-liability-waivers-2023-06-22/

The Difference Between Nautical Miles and Knots

The reason is ancient, and an evolution of different seafaring cultures, culminating in knots on a rope thrown to different depths over the side, as will be discussed. On land, speed is expressed in miles per hour (mph) or kilometers per hour (kph). However, measurements change when you’re at sea. You’ve probably heard the term “knot” being used to describe speed on the open sea, but what is a knot, and where did it come from?

Have you ever wondered: “Why speed at sea is measured in knots?” In this article, we’ll take a look at the history of nautical travel to provide you with the answer to this question and discuss why it is still used today.

Do You Need Legal Assistance? Book a Free Consultation Today to Talk to One of Our Cruise Ship Attorneys!

Early Methods Used to Measure Speed at Sea

Tales of sailors running out of basic necessities, dying of scurvy, and becoming stranded during hurricane season are commonplace in adventure stories and historical accounts of sailing vessels detained at sea.

Without knowing their speed, seafarers could run days behind schedule, endangering people on board and unsettling their loved ones waiting for them. Sailors were unable to determine their speed or distance because there were no landmarks to measure their progress on the open sea.

This is why they needed to come up with a reliable way to measure the speed of their vessels and the distance traveled. Admiralty law mandated a uniform system at some point.

The nautical mile (the equivalent of 1.1508 land-measured miles) was initially used as a unit of measurement for speed in the 15th century, and as a result, the chip log, which was the very first marine speedometer designed to measure speed, was born.

The Dutchman’s Log

Tossing a piece of wood over the vessel’s bow and timing how long it took for the stern to reach the object allowed sailors to determine how quickly their ship was traveling. This was one of the earliest forms of measurement and was the precursor for the chip log method that measured speed in knots. Dutchman’s log was the name used to describe this technique.

Chip Log Technique

By the 15th century, mariners began to use what they called the “chip log” or “common log” method to measure boat speed. This technique involved knotting a piece of rope at regular intervals. One end was attached to the ship’s stern, and the other would be attached to a pie-slice-shape piece of wood (or “chip”).

The rope, along with the wood shaped like a pie, was tossed into the sea and allowed to unroll freely as the ship advanced for a certain period, usually measured in hours (which they measured using an hourglass). After that, the number of knots that passed the ship’s stern was counted to determine how fast the vessel moved forward. The speed was expressed in knots per hour.

Where Does the Term “Knot” Come from?

Ancient mariners didn’t have access to the technology we have today. This means they had to use the materials they had on hand to measure a vessel’s speed. Once the seamen had determined the number of knots that crossed the ship’s stern using the chip log method, they used this to calculate the speed of the ship in knots per hour.

The nautical mile measures the distance from one knot to another. This is how one nautical mile per hour came to be known as a knot.

Therefore, if a ship’s speed measured 15 knots, this means that it was traveling at 15 nautical miles per hour. The day’s average of numerous readings showed to be a remarkably accurate representation of how quickly a ship was going. They used the information to navigate using dead reckoning, which was the standard practice before the development of modern technology.

Speed Measurements Today

Today, Doppler or ultrasonic sensors are used to calculate nautical speed, and the 30-second denominator has been changed to 28 in the rate calculation.

However, the term “log” still refers to the device used to gauge a ship’s speed, and nautical miles continue to be used to describe both marine and aviation distances.

The Nautical Mile Is Based on the Earth’s Circumference

Maps used in the air and sea are based on the earth’s circumference. Moreover, one nautical mile, which is about 500 feet greater than a land mile, balances out the scale variations with latitude.

The International Nautical Mile

Different nations disagreed on its measurement for several years. The international nautical mile was set at 6,076 feet in 1929, and the US accepted it in 1954. A nautical mile differs from a land mile, which is calculated based on walking distance.

Sailors and Pilots Today Still Remember the Common Log Method

Today sailors and pilots still refer to the speed of one nautical mile per hour as a knot, a remnant from the time when the crews of ships in adventure tales made do with some basic materials.

What’s the Difference Between Nautical Miles and Knots?

At this point, you may be confused about nautical miles and knots. In the section below, we’ll discuss the difference between these two terms.

Nautical Miles Measure Distance

The distance covered by water is expressed in nautical miles. As we’ve mentioned before, a nautical mile is 1.1508 land miles long, which is somewhat greater than a mile on land. Moreover, the nautical mile is based on latitude and longitude, and a nautical mile is equivalent to one minute of latitude.

Knots Measure Speed

On the other hand, the term knot is utilized to denote speed. One nautical mile per hour, or about 1.15 land miles per hour, is equal to one knot.

Final Thoughts

Ancient mariners used whatever they had to measure nautical speed, and their innovative techniques have shaped maritime measurements today. Next time you hear the word “knot” being used at sea, you’ll know what it means and how it came to be a monumental measurement.

If You Need Legal Assistance, Get in Touch with Us Today!

Are you recovering from an accident at sea that was not your fault? You may have lost your job because you’ve been unable to work or had to pay hefty medical bills that seem to pile up. Don’t despair! You may be eligible for compensation.

We can help you get the compensation you rightly deserve and hold the at-fault party liable for their negligence. Our team of experienced attorneys has been handling personal injury cases for several years and has the know-how to help you seek restitution.

Contact us today by dialing (833) LETS-SUE to book a free consultation!

The Practice Areas We Cover

• Cruise ship mishaps
• Dog bite injuries
• Car accidents
• Bus and truck accidents
• Wrongful death
• Bicycle accidents.

Contact us for more information!

One way to win is not to get bitten by using cover and concealment. But that’s not always possible. And some sharks throw a seal around to stun the seal before they eat them. So is fighting an option? Below, top Los Angeles boat accident attorney Michael Ehline goes over the essential details fishermen and tourists on cruise ships must know to avoid death by shark attack. He has spent extensive time interviewing researchers and examining case studies involving SeaDoos, small boats and surfers. Ultimately, we will review some survival tips to fight off a shark attack at sea.

Let’s put our eyes on a case involving Charles Gregory, aged 25. In a riveting tale of survival, one man’s struggle against a shark attack at sea reached a dramatic conclusion. The search for a missing boater by boat and helicopter reached its zenith as the U.S. Coast Guard located him adrift. It was adrift, approximately 12 miles off the shores of St. Augustine, Florida. His vessel, mostly submerged, bore witness to his ordeal.

Gregory was rescued on Saturday, August 5th, almost 48 hours after he had embarked from the Lighthouse Park Boat Ramp Thursday, August 3rd. His disappearance was officially reported on the subsequent Friday by the U.S. Coast Guard. Amidst the expanse of the ocean, an HC-130 Hercules airplane’s crew sighted Gregory on a Saturday morning, seated within his partially submerged Jon boat, as disclosed by the Coast Guard’s news release.

The boat’s bow dipping beneath the water’s surface was evident from U.S. Coast Guard footage. Upon reaching the shore, Gregory was transported via stretcher to an awaiting ambulance, revealing signs of significant sunburn. His legs had weakened due to muscle atrophy, an aftereffect disclosed in an August 5th Facebook post by The Surf Station, where Gregory worked as an employee. The shop acknowledged his challenges, including the presence of circling sharks around his beleaguered vessel.

The origin of this harrowing tale traces back to the early hours of the morning two days prior. Charles had ventured out into the inlet on his modest boat, a routine he had undertaken countless times to pursue bull reds, a type of fish. However, a sudden rogue wave capsized his craft forcing him overboard in the water alongside the craft. Eventually he took turns going aboard the partially sunken vessel as temporary refuge on the boat to escape encircling marine mammals and fish. The fisherman was repeatedly stung by jellyfish as he spotted multiple sharks as he battled the sweltering heat. In the shocking video on Twitter, FLIR shows the fisherman’s harrowing last moments on the chilly waters before police authorities rescued him.

Risk Gregory Faced of Tiger Shark and Other Attacks

• Hammerhead sharks: The top predators among many other sharks.
• Mako sharks: They weigh between 150 and 200 kilograms.
• Shortfin mako: This species was responsible for at least nine attacks on humans between 1980 and 2022.
• Oceanic whitetip shark: Among the least aggressive in the Red Sea and has rarely attacked and killed humans.
• Tiger sharks: The tiger shark remains surprisingly fast, growing up to 18 feet long among the big three species.
• Great white shark: The king of sharks and one of the big three, can be found all over the Mediterranean Sea.
• Whale Sharks: The marine mammals are tame, almost whale-like.
• Thresher Sharks: possess a heightened sensitivity to light and sound, rendering them acutely responsive to their environment. In light of this, it is advisable to refrain from making sudden, agitated movements or generating excessive noise in their presence.

Despite his desperate situation, numerous boats and planes unknowingly passed by him, failing to detect his presence amidst the vast expanse of the ocean. A testimony to the resilience of the human spirit, Charles Gregory persevered through those long hours of isolation and vulnerability.

For his family, the passage of time ushered in despair as hope dimmed. In an emotional account relayed by Gregory’s father, Raymond Gregory, a profound sense of divine intervention and the power of hope emerged.

“It’s a miracle. There is a God up there,” Tweeted Raymond Gregory from the station. “If you ever thought (there) wasn’t, let your kid go missing offshore in the friggin’ ocean for 38 hours. I gave up hope. I should never have given up hope.”

Amidst this narrative of survival, the account also touches on other maritime incidents and rescues, underlining the unpredictable nature of the sea and the relentless effort of those involved in safeguarding lives at sea.

How Did One Man Fight off a Shark Attack at Sea

In a chilling incident off the Oregon coast, a man swimming on a surfboard, identified as Joe Tanner, found himself in a nightmare scenario, paddling and fending off one or potentially more shark attacks; before that, he eagerly awaited a wave. The moment’s tranquility was shattered as he suddenly felt a gripping sensation on his leg. For any surfer or beach enthusiast, the situation unfolded was the stuff of nightmares.

Tanner cast his gaze downwards only to discover a formidable great white shark, its teeth bared menacingly. Incredibly, displaying remarkable courage, the 29-year-old sprang into action, countering the shark’s assault by delivering a barrage of forceful punches directly to its gills, using his fists as a weapon. This determined response compelled the predator to relent, allowing Tanner to extricate himself from the dangerous grip – a feat that has garnered awe and acclaim as nothing short of “incredible.”

Upon reaching the safety of the shore, Tanner’s resilience continued to shine. Despite his injuries, he took the reins of his first aid, guiding those around him to take a nurse’s actions. In a remarkable display of self-reliance, he instructed people to apply tourniquets to staunch blood flow from his wounds, demonstrating resourcefulness and composure in the face of adversity as he grabbed his destiny.

Marine biologists are lauding Tanner’s remarkable escape as an extraordinary feat, emphasizing that he demonstrated an impeccable sequence of actions. His responses have been deemed exemplary, from delivering forceful blows to the shark’s sensitive gills to overseeing his medical treatment until professional assistance arrived.

Background as a Nurse?

It’s worth noting that Tanner’s proficiency in first aid stems from his role as a critical care nurse at Portland’s Legacy Emanuel Medical Center. Dr. Matthew Levy, an associate professor of emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, who was not directly involved in Tanner’s case, believes Tanner did it right. Dr. Levy remarked, “He’s fortunate and incredibly cool under pressure.”

Great Whites – Nasty, Fast

Differing from their counterparts, great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) possess the distinctive attribute of being warm-blooded. This trait endows them with the capacity to swiftly pursue their prey, according to insights provided by Lowe. Their favored targets, including marine mammals such as elephant seals, exhibit intelligence and agility that necessitates strategic approaches like ambush attacks for the great whites to secure a catch.

The precise population count of great white sharks inhabiting the West Coast remains an enigma. However, findings from a 2014 study published in the journal PLOS ONE suggested an estimation exceeding 2,000 individuals swimming along the California coastline. Despite their numerical presence, shark-human encounters remain infrequent. Nonetheless, Lowe anticipates an uptick in such occurrences as shark populations continue to expand in the forthcoming years.

Other Terrible Shark Attack

In another tragic incident, a 23-year-old Russian man named Vladimir Popov fell victim to a tiger shark attack on a beach in Hurghada, Egypt, situated along the shores of the Red Sea. In the face of imminent danger, Vladimir’s father, Yury Popov, found himself powerless to rescue his son from the relentless assault of the shark. The young man confronted an agonizing and fateful ordeal, enduring a relentless barrage from the creature for two hours.

Local individuals eventually apprehended the predator on a fishing boat. After that, the dad, Yury Popov, took matters into his own hands, courageously confronting the three-meter-long shark and ending its life in a desperate bid to avenge his son. The father, stricken with grief, recounted the tragic incident to the media, revealing the staggering brevity of the entire ordeal, condensed into a mere 20 seconds that shattered their lives.

The heart-wrenching loss of Vladimir is compounded by the fact that, in addition to him, another woman was present in the water during the attack. The distressing video of the incident captured the young man’s futile struggle against the relentless predator. Swimming near the shoreline of Dream Beach Sheraton, Vladimir was suddenly confronted by the aggressive shark. Chaos ensued as he attempted to evade the onslaught, with the shark’s fin ominously appearing nearby. Subsequent identification confirmed the victim’s identity as ‘V—Popov,’ as reported by TASS, the news agency that shared this heartrending tale.

As noted, these rare examples show the many ways a shark can threaten a person. In one case, a trained surfer with a nursing background survived. In another case, a fisherman used a partially submerged boat to stay alive. In the last example, a young Russian boy was killed by an animal. Most victims don’t survive. The below tips are expected to assist you in weathering a shark attack in this world.

Fighting off a Shark Attack

No one tip is at the top of our list. Reacting to a shark attack requires careful consideration of practical strategies and occasionally an excellent ole punch. Remember, it will happen fast and a simple fall from a gangplank could mean the end.

It is impossible to identify if it’s docile, like a whale shark.

• Stay calm and avoid panicking. Quick movements can trigger predatory behavior. Remember, sharks are often curious rather than aggressive.
• Contrary to widespread belief, attempting to deter a shark by punching its nose is not always viable.
• Fight back. Even a test bite can cause serious harm. Aim for the eyes, nose, and gills. Having a weapon like a knife can help, but target vulnerable areas. On a larger scale, orcas have utilized a ramming technique to immobilize great white sharks anywhere on Earth. It may work for you too.
• A more successful technique involves flipping smaller sharks (such as during tiger shark attacks) upside down, which can increase paralysis in these creatures.
• Maintain eye contact with the shark and show assertiveness. Stay composed and keep your eyes on the shark. Assert your presence without aggression, and avoid looking docile.
• If a shark releases its grip, swim swiftly to safety while keeping an arm wound raised above your heart to control bleeding.
• Avoid looking at your wounds, as the sight can induce shock.

Remember that sharks are powerful predators, and their injuries can be severe. Stay focused on your survival. Doctors should do their best to triage bite victims quickly, as blood loss can be deadly with these deep lacerations. If you need a lawyer after going overboard and suffering a shark attack, contact Ehline Law at (213) 596-9642 or by email.

California is not only known for its hilly landscape but also its pristine beaches. Tourists flock to beaches like Malibu, Santa Monica, Laguna, and others to enjoy their vacation.

Want the latest news on the Avalon Drownings?

We Report here. Still, the locals know about one of the most beautiful islands, California’s hidden gem in plain sight, Santa Catalina Island. To get to the island, you must catch an hour-long ferry ride from either Long Beach, San Pedro, Dana Point, or Newport Beach. Although you may feel excited about your trip to Catalina Island, it is essential to note that boating accidents are on the rise, and you must take the necessary steps to ensure your protection.

Many more people are traveling on cruise ships to experience luxury on the water than ever before and with crowds comes increased chances of accidents, injuries, and more.

Although cruise lines offer luxury experiences on large boats, the cruise industry is notorious for sexual assaults, accidents, rape, and more. These injuries lead to physical harm and emotional trauma, which can stay with the passenger victim for a long time.

If you’ve had a cruise ship accident or your loved one has gone missing, contact our Los Angeles cruise ship attorneys today to review your case and file claims.

Types of Cruise Ship Accidents a Person May Have

Different types of accidents may happen on a cruise ship, and some of them include:

• Swimming pool accidents
• Food poisoning
• Drowning
• Activity injuries
• Sexual assault and rapes at sea
• Accidents due to negligence
• And many more.

Where Should You File a Cruise Ship Lawsuit?

A cruise ship ticket dictates the terms and conditions for passengers to file lawsuits if they wish; it is best to read the fine print on the ticket to understand your rights. Since cruise ships travel across the world, the ticket will also mention the location where you can file for lawsuits.

Filing a lawsuit against cruise companies in places not mentioned in your ticket may result in a dismissal of the case. Your ticket is a passenger contract, and you must follow the guideline set by lawyers to make the terms and conditions for cruise companies. The venue selection clause is enforceable by law even in the United States, which makes it hard for a victim to bring a lawsuit against a cruise line or the parent company.

Do You Have to Travel to the Destination Where You Filed the Suit?

Since the ticket dictates where to file legal action against the cruise company, you must head to that place if you wish to file a suit. Mediation of the case before trial will also require you to travel to the destination mentioned on your cruise ticket.

However, if you’re undergoing medical treatment or, due to old age, can not safely travel, you can avoid traveling to file the suit. In such situations, a Los Angeles cruise ship attorney can guide you better.

When Should Cruise Ship Injury Victims File Claims?

Just like any lawsuit, you need to file it within the law’s window and act quickly as you only have one year following the event, so any claim or suit after the window period will automatically result in a dismissal. However, there are certain exceptions to this.

Although according to cruise lines and the ticket, passengers have a year to file claims, the federal statute of limitations allows three years for maritime negligence in certain situations where minors, incompetent passengers, and families who have lost their loved ones to injuries due to the failure of the cruise ship or crew members get involved. The period, in this case, does not start until the appointment of a legal representative by the court.

Do You Need to Inform Cruise Lines about Your Intent to File for Damages?

Your ticket may explain all the provisions and whether you must inform the cruise line of your intent to file a suit. If the key mentions that you need to tell the cruise company, you may have a short time to notify the company when filing a claim. It is best to consult Los Angeles cruise ship attorneys to know your legal rights before informing the company.

How to Determine the Worth of Your Case?

There is no particular way to calculate your claims or the value of your case. Everything depends on different factors and will vary on a case-by-case basis; however, some of the factors that impact the worth of an issue are as follows:

1. Nature of the case
2. Type of injury
3. The evidence collected
4. Physical and emotional trauma
5. Any lost wages or lost income
6. Medical bills (current and future)
7. Treatment costs
8. And more depending on the case.

An experienced Los Angeles cruise ship attorney can help you determine claims as they have access to medical experts, investigative teams, and the right resources in the legal space.

Contact Ehline Law and our Los Angeles Cruise ship attorneys at (213) 596-9642 for an assessment of your case. Going against a cruise line is challenging, especially when the laws that govern this industry are vague and riddled with loopholes. However, having a qualified and experienced cruise ship lawyer can increase your chances of getting the compensation you deserve.

Ehline Law is a leading personal injury law firm operating in California and has tremendous experience dealing with cruise ship cases and more. Our Los Angeles injury attorneys have recovered more than $150 million in compensation and have helped over 3,000 clients since our inception. We understand the challenging situation you’re going through so let us stand with you in such challenging times, Call us or visit us and get a free consultation on your case today!