Maersk Alabama

[Paul Racine]

“Captain Phillips” the movie is to be released in North America very soon. I was watching a CNN clip about the captain which brought up some interesting facts surrounding the whole episode. It seems that the crew are totally astounded by the story as presented in the film. Not having seen it as yet, but according to reports that I have read, the film asserts that Captain Phillips willingly gave himself up to the pirates as a hostage to save the crew members. It seems that the crew are amazed by this account of events.
The most interesting part of the CNN clip was the assertion by the officers and crew and that the captain acted recklessly. It seems he had received a series of e mails issued by a private security company advising him to stay at least 600 miles off the Somali coast due to pirate activity. The captain ignored these warnings. 300 miles off the coast the Maersk Alabama was boarded by pirates. It appears that the captain in the interests of the company wanted to take the shortest route to his destination in Kenya.
Now it seems that there are all kinds of law suits being actioned by the crew against the company. I am wondering if amongst these suits there will be one against the captain for reckless endangerment.
Personally I wonder if such a legal action would succeed. Does a captain have the right to set a course of his own choosing even though he has been warned of possible danger in doing so? Should a captain be held legally accountable if by ignoring warnings issued by private security company he puts his ship, its cargo and crew in jeopardy?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Paul in Montreal

[j.sabourn]

50 years ago I would have said off the top of my head that the master was accountable only to God as regards his actions on the High Seas. Nowadays I think this would be a very debatable point. I took the attitude when possible that the crews lives were of paramount importance under normal controllable times. However as all human life comes first and foremost, nowadays the excuse of saving the shipowner money by burning less bunkers and making shorter passage time in the sure knowledge he was endangering life, would take some proving. As the master could claim that the advice he received, he did not consider accurate. Even direct orders from the Owners of the vessel he may also ignore under the right circumstances. A very good arguable point and am sure the only ones to get money will be the Lawyers, assisted by the press, who with all their meddling will probably further dirty the waters. Cheers John Sabourn