Couple moving with QON suing BCF for negligence

[tyty]

Passengers sue BC Ferries for alleged negligence

VANCOUVER (CBC) -- Two passengers on the ferry that sank off northern British Columbia last week have filed the first lawsuit against the operator of the vessel, CBC News has learned.

Alexander and Maria Kotai allege in their statement of claim that negligence by BC Ferries is to blame for the loss of their possessions on board the Queen of the North.

The Kotais accuse BC Ferries of failing to:

• Train the crew adequately.
  
• Supervise the crew on the bridge.
  
• Keep a proper lookout.
  
• Operate at safe speed.
  
• Conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that prevented or minimized injuries.

The Kotais lost all their clothing, family photos and heirlooms. They were in the process of moving from Kitimat to Nanaimo to be closer to their son and grandchildren.

A moving truck took most of their belongings, but they felt it would be safer to keep their most valued possessions, along with their car, on the Queen of the North, the couple said.

The ferry was heading south on an overnight trip to Port Hardy from Prince Rupert when it went down near Hartley Bay after it hit a rock.

The Kotais have not specified how much they're seeking in compensation. But their statement of claim says they're ready to supply a list of expenses and what they've lost.

CBC reporter Andree Lau reported that the couple's lawyer, David Varty, said he still has to contact each passenger and family member who may be included in the lawsuit and assess their losses. He said the damages have "the potential to be in the millions."

[Doug]

That is pathetic. I knew there was going to be some sort of lawsuit out of all of this. (My mom actually predicted it would come from this couple.)

Ungrateful pricks. Maybe if they were put in the water and rescued by the crew (which the crew would), this wouldn't happen.

[tyty]

Yeah, and this couple has invited others to join on in a class action, which I could see coming as well. I don't know how much of a case they have for negligence unless they found the crew to be at fault due to error on their part.

The part I'm not too comfortable with is their claim that they did not "conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that prevented or minimized injuries" ... for heaven's sake we're talking about a ship sinking!! The fact the crew got all but two off successfully is pretty damn good, if you ask me.

[Political Incorrectness]

About the safety BCF saved many lives in that tragety, how the he** did they not train crew atequitely? What is the captain's duty?? To be an overprotective mother? Service speed is a safe speed, because of weather conditions YOU CAN'T HELP WEATHER! The last part of that is just a bunch of BS. There were minimal injuries, at least they did not end up at the bottom of the ocean.

[Scott]

When anything like this happens, you can expect a lawsuit to come out of it. You've gotta feel for the people who lost everything they took with them on the ferry. Wouldn't BC Ferries offer to cover their loses... or does it usually come down to a lawsuit for people to get what they want?

I do have to agree however that it sounds extremely pathetic and ungrateful to claim the evacuation wasn't done properly. I don't think any of those "charges" have much basis at all. But ultimately, whatever the cause of the accident, I guess BC Ferries is responsible for their loses.

One thing I don't undestand is how they can be so specific about laying blame when the investigation has hardly started... and probably won't be finished for over a year.

[tyty]

Yeah... none of their claims have much chance of holding up in a court of law until the investigation is complete.

[Scott (Former Account)]

Hearing about this lawsuit just pisses me off... Especially the one saying, "[the inability to]train the crew adequately". If it wasn't for the BCFS workers, the individuals would probably be at the bottom of the ocean. Comments like that are just utterly selfish, as well as inexcusable in all respects...

While I do feel sorry for the Kotai's loss, I believe that their accusations at this time are outrageous...

And what is this about "Conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that prevented or minimized injuries"..? What, did they want to each be fitted into a plastic bubble, then float to safety..? Did they want tea and crumpets while waiting on the lifeboat for rescue..? --Outrageous...

I would certainly rather be injured while evacuating, then remaining on the ship to die...

[Curtis]

Your right. If it wasn't for the Crew of the Queen of the North, They would be at the Bottom of the Ocean right now. It's like they think waiting in the life boats is all fun and games. When the reality is that you're not on the ferry anymore.

[Balfour]

4 out of the 5 mentioned accusations are bulls***! The crew was adequately trained, they were operating at a safe speed, and injuries during evacuation were minimal.

The last accusation is the most rediculous "Conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that prevented or minimized injuries." In a situation like that, I'd rather have an injury than be dead!

swear word edited by mod

[NMcKay]

they may want to check the conditions of cartiage... for all those not link savy

CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE
1. Carriage of passengers and their luggage, including their vehicles, shall be pursuant to the Marine Liability Act, SC 2001 c.6 and amendments thereto and all terms defined in such Act shall have the same meanings under these conditions.
2. No Bill of Lading is issued in respect of this carriage and the Hague-Visby Rules do not apply.
3. The Carrier shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience suffered by any passenger resulting from late, delayed or cancelled sailings, arrivals or departures regardless of the cause or from any change or deviation in any schedule of sailing times from those published by the Carrier.
4. All fares, tariffs or surcharges are subject to change without notice. Cost of carriage is subject to changes in fares, tariffs or surcharges effected prior to carriage, such increased amounts to be paid prior to boarding.
5. In order to protect the health, safety, security and comfort of its passengers, the Carrier reserves the right to refuse transportation to any person, vehicle, article or goods or to remove same from any vessel, or from any terminal or other property occupied by the Carrier. The Carrier’s Rules and Requirements for terminal operations and carriage are available from any terminal manager and are posted on the Carrier’s website at bcferries.com. The Carrier is under no obligation to accept for carriage any luggage or accept any vehicle, article or goods which do not meet its requirements with respect to identification or condition. The Carrier has the right, but not the obligation, to verify in the presence of the passenger the contents of luggage, and, to open and examine such luggage whether or not the passenger is present.
6. For good order and security, passengers agree to follow the directions of any employee of the Carrier in respect of use or operation of the terminal or vessel. When requested by any employee, passengers will provide proof of identification satisfactory to the Carrier and will answer any enquiry and produce any documents requested by the employee in respect to any luggage, vehicle or its contents. Persons who refuse to provide information or documentation as required; who refuse to follow directions of any employee, sign or device in any terminal or on board any vessel; who interfere with or molest other passengers; who interfere with the operation of a terminal or vessel; or who interfere with any employee of the Carrier, may be refused passage, ordered off the vessel and evicted from the terminal. The Carrier will rely on sections 44 and 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada to maintain good order and discipline.
7. Any and all costs incurred by the Carrier in respect of any luggage or vehicle left unattended or in an unauthorized location or for non payment of fees or expenses shall be for the account of the passenger and the Carrier shall have a lien on such luggage or vehicle for such amounts. If the owner or driver of any vehicle does not drive the vehicle
June 28, 2005
on or off its vessel in accordance with the directions of the Carrier, then the Carrier may remove the vehicle from the vessel at the sole risk and expense of the owner or driver. The Carrier shall not be liable for any damage caused by or to such vehicle or its contents even if caused by the Carrier’s negligence.
8. No vehicle shall be deemed to have been taken over by the Carrier until such vehicle is permanently at rest on board the vessel prior to sailing and shall be deemed to be redelivered by the Carrier on commencement of discharge from the vessel. At all other times, vehicles are under the care, custody and control of the owner or driver of the vehicle and responsibility for any loss or damage to or by the vehicle shall be with the owner or driver of the vehicle, notwithstanding any direction given by the Carrier in respect of that vehicle. The owner or driver of the vehicle is responsible for properly securing the vehicle and its contents throughout the voyage. The Carrier is not responsible for theft of the vehicle or of its contents, or for damage to any vehicle not due to the negligence of the carrier.
9. For the purpose of these Conditions of Carriage, the Carrier includes every agent, servant and employee of the Carrier and any corporation owned by, subsidiary to or associated or affiliated with the Carrier, including every independent contractor from time to time employed by the Carrier and every right of whatsoever nature applicable to the Carrier or to which the Carrier is entitled hereunder or by statute or common law shall also be available and shall extend to each of them.
10. The Carrier shall not be liable for any loss, detention, damage, injury causing death or illness caused to or by live animals however or wherever such loss, detention, damage or injury occurs even though caused by any act, neglect or default of the Carrier.
11. The Carrier shall not be liable for the quality, nature or consequence of any medical or surgical treatment or assistance which may be administered, notwithstanding that the said medical or surgical treatment or assistance is done negligently. Passengers are required to advise the Carrier of any and all health issues or concerns prior to entering into the contract of carriage.
12. The Carrier may amend these Conditions of Carriage at any time.

[NMcKay]

number 10 says it all

[Curtis]

I'd go for that any day. They really are fools for these law suits. If they're alive everything is okay. When will people learn Suing isn't always the answer.

[NMcKay]

yea. and at the end, when the couple gets counter sued for Monies incurred by thier suing

[Balfour]

It's just like the Exclusion of Liability at all Ski Resorts.

[NMcKay]

yep. they wont win...so why would they try?

[tyty]

The thing is that lay people are usually greenhorns when it comes to the law and don't think hard enough on legalities (did they even look at the conditions of carriage?) before carrying through with these ideas.

Of course, there are also plenty of defence lawyers out there who's job it is to find ANYTHING. But this seems like a tough case to win, I'm sure most of us agree on that.

[Dane]

Human error.. BCFS at fault.

The reasons they've listed are pretty dumb, but that's irrelevent really.

The conditions on the back of the ticket do not make BCFS liability free, in fact to an extent they're basically useless. It's more like a stern reminder to people about policy (it does assist BCFS in smaller claims, but not in, oh, the sinking of a ship)

There is still a standard of care on the part of BCFS, and that would be that the ship arrive safely from point A to point B with out the damamge of property due to a preventable cause.

I doubt this case will go anywhere before the TSB releases it's report.

[Dane]

qsandwich said:

It's just like the Exclusion of Liability at all Ski Resorts.

... and if the ski lift falls and everyone looses equipment the mountain is still liable, despite the waiver, if they could have prevented the accident from occuring (so let's say they were told maintenance was required but it wasn't preformed... or the ski lift operator wasn't paying attention)

These things are protection against frivolous lawsuits.

The couple is dumb to sue BCFS b/c they likely would have gotten a better settlement if they just waiting... but they've made their choice.

The people at Sewells that sued came out with less than those of us that took BCFS's initial offer.

actually I only know of one person that held out, so I should say person not people

[tyty]

Suit turns into a class action

VANCOUVER (CKNW/AM980) -- The first lawsuit has been filed in connection with the sinking of the Queen of the North.

Vancouver laywer David Varty confirms that his clients, Alex and Maria Kotai are the first ferry passengers to file. But the lawsuit has now been certified to include all passengers aboard the Queen of the North when it sank.

"It's a class-action lawsuit that will represent all the people who were on board who paid for their trip from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy," Varty said.

[ed]

tyty said:

CBC reporter Andree Lau reported that the couple's lawyer, David Varty, said he still has to contact each passenger and family member who may be included in the lawsuit and assess their losses. He said the damages have "the potential to be in the millions."

Varty is the guy that sought the Liberal Party nomination to challenge Kim Campbell in 1993.

[ed]

cascade said:

So is he making a political comeback ? or just wants to make money off the "state" BC Ferries?

Lawsuits will start flying soon - the gravy train is coming to town...politicans with axes to sharpen....

I see on Varty Law firm's website they say "experience in low velocity impact collisions".

[dane at school]

This isn't some form of conspiracy. He's a lawyer, and this is what lawyers do. I would sue BCFS too, but I'd also wait for them to present a settlement first. These people have more likely than not set themselves up to pay to get almost the same settlement. BCFS hasn't been stingy in the past.

[NMcKay]

next time you go on bcf check your ticket.

"This ticket is issued subject to certain Conditions of carriage(available at bcferries.com and head office in victoria) which are hereby incorperated into and form part of this ticket and the contract of carriage hereby evidenced. the conditions of carriage include terms limitin or excluding the liability of the carrier, its masters, servants and employees. the person purchasing this ticket for another passenger is acting as agent for that passenger. this is not a negotiable instrument"

[Neil]

I think some people here are perhaps being a bit callous to those who were on the ferry and now plan to sue. It's all well and good for us to 'stick up for the ferries', but despite whatever nonsense the company puts on the back of their tickets, they have a legal responsibility to operate their vessels with due care and attention, and if it's shown that that was not the case on board Queen of The North, then those who suffered losses are morally and legally within their rights to sue. If Klatawa Teen and tyty had just lost their life's possessions and had the crap scared out of them by (possibly) a ferry crew literally asleep at the wheel, would they just throw up their hands and say, "oh well. Ticket says I'm out of luck, so I guess I'm out of luck"? I very much doubt it.

[Dane]

harbourlynxkid said:

next time you go on bcf check your ticket.

"This ticket is issued subject to certain Conditions of carriage(available at bcferries.com and head office in victoria) which are hereby incorperated into and form part of this ticket and the contract of carriage hereby evidenced. the conditions of carriage include terms limitin or excluding the liability of the carrier, its masters, servants and employees. the person purchasing this ticket for another passenger is acting as agent for that passenger. this is not a negotiable instrument"

This does not free BC Ferries from negligence. If human error is found to be the cause on a balance of probabilities BC Ferries will be fully at fault for the damages the individuals incurred. Take any intro to Canadian Law course and you'll know that.

BC Ferries has a duty to maintain what would be considered a "reasonable duty of care" to all the passengers. This, in civil terms, meens keeping the ship upright and sailing. If the couple didn't have the chance to save their belongings - and I'm gonna go out a limb here and assume they didn't - then BC Ferries will be found guilty and need to reimburse them if the accident was preventable.

Perhaps you should talk to some one who used to work at HL about this. It's based on pretty elementray liability concepts.