They will speak of the Titanic for eons to come. For whatever reason, there is a fascination with that tragedy of over 100 years ago. It has been a staple of the big screen, literature, and more. The good netizens that curate Wikipedia can attest to that. It is not a mystery. The cause of the sinking is long since solved. The damage to the ship, the culprit iceberg, the romance of the stone, all settled.
But, for some reason there remain those who are interested in getting up close and personal with that graveyard. They are possibly fascinated by the story. Perhaps they are intrigued by the danger of a a trip two miles beneath the surface. Possibly, they are the rich and idle and find solace or assuage in the expenditure of obscene money in pursuit of the trivial, a mere conspicuous consumption?
For whatever reason, there are those who will pay in the six figures for a trip to the bottom of the Atlantic. And, the news brought us word last week that one trip was not successful. Now there will be investigations. The integrity of the Titan submersible will be under scrutiny as will be those who ran the company that built and owned it. There will be recriminations, accusations, and conclusions.
Some have already cast some questions regarding the decision to sail. An investor from Las Vegas passed. A documentary producer from Great Brittain passed. A television host passed. Their reasons are noted in those stories. There were concerns about the equipment, perceptions, and danger. It is likely perhaps that some were even concerned with the cost.
That said, some people opted to take the trip. Movie director James Cameron has reportedly descended to the wreck 30 times, though not on this particular submersible.
The vehicle in this tragedy, Titan, had its detractors. Mr. Cameron essentially said last week that he would not have traveled in it. He was “very suspect of the technology.” He was concerned the craft was uncertified, and seemed to believe that was foregone because of a fear it would not have been certified if submitted. Others quoted by
Forbes seem to discount the safety and design of Titan. We may not see the future, but some things are reasonably clear.
There will be investigations. We can learn from that very fact. The Coast Guard was involved in the search, to the tune of "millions." It will conduct an investigation into Titan. According to CNN, that investigation will either combine with or parallel an investigation by "the Transportation Safety Board of Canada." That story assures that there will be participation also by "The US National Transportation Safety Board." After those stories circulated, the San Diego Tribune reported that investigators from "France and the United Kingdom" will also be involved.
This illustrates the aftermath of almost any accident. There are typically investigations. But, as in other realms, there are questions here of authority and ability. The "authority" issue is readily labeled "jurisdiction," and there are questions in many incidents. What state can investigate, which agency will take the lead, and how can interference and distraction be minimized? It may be easier with a localized accident involving homogeneous parties. But this is an extreme example.
Certainly, this accident was not on the soil of any nation, but in international waters. The company that owned the submersible is a U.S. Company. The ship that delivered it to the dive site and likely provided additional technical and logistical support is flagged in Canada. Those who boarded for this particular fateful trip are nationals of Britain, Pakistan, France, and the U.S.
Some critics have found irony. They note that the international regulations of sea travel were forged in response to the Titanic sinking. CNN reports that "Titan may have a similar legacy." They assert that there should be "rules governing new high-end, big dollar tourism of" this kind. There are also those who lament the costs associated with the exploits of others. The New York Times discusses several perspectives and examples.
There are those who think that the U.S. should leave the field. They deem the Coast Guard investigation a "waste of tax dollars." Some in Canada think the investigation should be a criminal one instead. The CEO of the company that owned the submersible was on the Titan, and thus beyond criminal prosecution. Perhaps others at the company might be prosecuted. But where? Could Canada? Others? There are significant challenges here with jurisdiction.
If there will be no criminal prosecution, then to what end is an investigation? What might be learned, and who would benefit from that information? Almost certainly, there will be lawsuits. But, should those seeking compensation do that investigating and spending?
There is the potential that the CEO is an employee, and thus discussion of Washington State workers' compensation might occur as to any claim from his heirs or dependents. The failure was at sea, and there is room to potentially discuss the Jones Act.
The Frenchman aboard may have been an employee. But where was he hired? Does it matter if the contract for hire was in Washington, Paris, or Timbuktu? As regards application of laws, jurisdiction, and contracts there could be import. Whether he was an employee or a contractor may matter. Whether he was a company official could potentially matter.
If there is to be a civil lawsuit by a submersible occupant's survivor(s), where would it be filed? Is that a Washington suit? Would it be possible that Pakistan, Britain, or France might exercise the authority of their courts over claims? If they did, could those courts exercise authority (jurisdiction) over the submersible company, the Canadian ship company, the manufacturers of the submersible materials and components, or the designers of the ill-fated machine?
And did the occupants sign a release? Was it clear? Was it explained? Does it matter?
In the end, the fact is that this event is not terribly different from hundreds that occur around the planet daily. There is error, malfeasance, mistake, and pure accident. People are injured, they die, and there are questions. Various authorities may investigate. Fines may be imposed. Liabilities are considered, analyzed, settled, dismissed, or litigated. Certainly, this event got significant publicity. Certainly the international waters location creates complexities. But, in the end those complexities will be dealt with here as they always are, one element or question at a time. In the end, this event is tragic but similar in so many ways to a vast volume of daily tragedies.
What we can all glean from this is that regardless of our status, passenger, visitor, or employee, the best we have is ourselves. There are those who reportedly left this company's employ. They put themself first. There are those who declined to ride on this experimental submersible. They put themself first. There are those who exercised their choice and thus were not involved. That said, they missed the catastrophe but also the ride.
In the same sense, any employee anywhere can decline to work in an unsafe environment. Sure, they must also essentially miss the ride, the paycheck, the job. But as compelling or attractive as that ride or paycheck is, the question has to be whether it is worth one's life. Too often, the risk of life and limb is not adequately considered by employer or employee. Certainly, each faces risks in the work setting. But, in the end, the ultimate risk is borne by the employee who climbs the equipment, enters the trench, or uses the device. In the end, safety is job #1 and the best person to look out for our safety is ourself.
