The Salty Barrister

We had to hove-to for engine repairs, kind of. I've been battling a case of bronchitis that left me disinclined to write. At any rate, we're underway and making way now.

I picked up a book the other day and it was about one-hundred things "they" don't want you to know about everyday life. I'm not sure who the "they" are, but it was mildly interesting with random facts about government and society. I think the concept of that book is something that resonates in this blog (without the conspiratorial element of the "they") which aims to convey interesting flotsam and jetsam pertaining to United States maritime law. To that end, I bring your attention to a pending Congressional bill.

The bill (introduced on June 29, 2009) is entitled the "United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009." The bill's stated purpose is "to assist in the defense of United States-flag vessels against piracy and to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of those vessels against piracy." The gist of the bill is essentially a limitation of liability and the first group protected are the "owners, operators and masters" who would be protected from civil lawsuits arising out of force authorized under the regulations. Moreover, "vessel" is defined as a vessel for which a certificate of inspection has been issued and is operating in "high risk" waters. As far as I can tell, there's been no vote and the bill is currently pending before the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism. The bill is identified as HR 2984 IH for those who want to read its text.

Underway and making way.

--- JKF

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Here's to keeping you all up to date.Yesterday , the United States Supreme Court issued a decision on a maritime personal injury issue. Generally speaking, a seaman is entitled to maintenance (a form of stipend) and cure (medical care) when injured.

Despite some arguments otherwise, the Supreme Court has now held that a seaman can seek an award of punitive damages when the maintenance and cure obligation is willfully and wantonly disregarded. The case, for those legal eagles out there, is Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 08-214.

Underway and making way.

--- JKF

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Let’s face it, we've all been assigned a serial number in the form of a social security number.It seems everywhere you go these days, someone's asking for your "social." I guess that soft lexicon aims at trying to make it seem less Orwellian. How you wonder am I going to segue into something salty? Try this on for size, your boat has its own kind of "social".

A vessel manufacturer must identify each boat produced or imported with a hull identification number. The HIN, as it's called, must consist of twelve characters. The first three characters identify the manufacturer, characters four through eight are the manufacturer's serial number, characters nine and ten typically indicate the date of certification or manufacture, and characters eleven and twelve indicate the model year (i.e., "82" for 1982). Characters nine and ten can be decoded by understanding that character nine will be an English letter of the alphabet with January being "A", February being "B", etc. Character ten must be the last digit of the year of manufacture or certification. A visual guide to decoding your boat's social can be found below.

You can decode a portion of your social security number as well so as to learn the date and state of issuance. There's probably a clever observation to be made between a vessel's HIN and a person's social security number, but nothing's coming to me at the moment. Writing about social security numbers makes me feel like I've turned out of the harbor and into a gray sea scudded with chop and pressed low under a dark sky. A sense, I guess, of something unpleasant making its way ashore.

Underway and making way.

--- JKF

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Clarifying The June 18, 2009 Post

An anonymous reader correctly pointed out that my comments regarding vessel documentation in my last post seemed contrary to his (or her) experience, having previously documented Taiwanese manufactured vessels. The caveat that needs to be added is that, generally speaking, for any vessel for which a coastwise, Great Lakes, or fishery endorsement is sought, you need to prove the vessel is built in the United States. To prove that a vessel is deemed to have been built in the United States for documentation purposes, all of the major components of the hull and superstructure must have been fabricated and assembled in the United States. See, 46 C.F.R. §67.97.

--- JKF

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Warm weather, the smell of a grill and that crisp tinny sound of an aluminum can being cracked open. Ah, summer has arrived in the Northern Hemisphere and it couldn't have come sooner. Point being, you're going to be milling around the Club, maybe joining the crowd down on the dock, and generally socializing all of which calls for some witty repartee. I kind of hoard my wit, but for bridging the gaps between your humor, you're welcome to borrow from the following flotsam and jetsam:

• Seawater has a salinity of about 3.5%, it's denser than freshwater, and it freezes at about 28.4° F.
• For a vessel to be documented in the United States, all of the major components of the hull and superstructure must have been fabricated and assembled in the United States.
• If you strike a buoy or other navigational aid, you must immediately report the incident to the nearest Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection Office.
• A United States documented vessel may (by custom) fly a yacht ensign (the flag depicting a fouled anchor with thirteen stars) in place of the national flag when sailing domestically, the rule of thumb on flag sizes for vessels is 1" for every foot of vessel length, fly the flag of the country you're visiting on the starboard halyard, and if you're flag isn't lit after sunset, you shouldn't be flying it.
• Slip F-18 is where Travis McGee kept his 52' houseboat (the "Busted Flush") at the Bahia Mar Marina in Fort Lauderdale. (You can pull in there and they've got the plaque for that slip in the office.)

Use them sparingly, drink and tan responsibly respectively, and soak up enough warm memories to last you through another winter.

Underway and making way.

--- JKF

Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

I nearly forgot what I was going to write in this entry. Must be something to do with all the rain we've been getting in the Northeast; tired neurons being washed away. At any rate, wage penalties are on deck.

The Wage Penalty Statute is a scary bit of legislation that provides, in broad speak here, for the application of a penalty when a seaman's wages are withheld. The penalty can add up to big sized numbers because it's based on a double-wage calculus. ("The master shall pay a seaman the balance of wages due the seaman within 2 days after . . . the seaman is discharged . . . When payment is not made without sufficient cause, the master or owner shall pay to the seaman 2 days’ wages for each day payment is delayed." See, 46 U. S. C. § 10504. See also, 46 U.S.C. § 10313) Yachts, fishing boats or one of the other excepted classes needn't worry as the statute's penalty aspect has a carve-out exception for y'all, but, of course, check with your attorney whatever the circumstance to make sure I'm not all wet. (I'm curious as to what constitutes a "yacht"? We'll investigate on this end and report back.)

I missed the Super Bowl once because of a deposition I had to take in a wage penalty case. Good thing husbands with Southern born wives aren't amenable to penalties for missing such sacred events because I would've been looking at quite a claim!

Underway and making way.

--- JKF

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Losers weepers, finders keepers.  That's the adage we all know, right?  Well, the Kingdom of Spain lost a ship of silver and gold coins to British gunboats back around 1804.  A few years ago, an industrious treasure hunter found the lost wreck, recovered a lot of the booty and then ended up in a tussle with the Spanish government.

So the case is pending in the federal court in Florida where the Kingdom of Spain argues that the United States courts have no jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  The issue is briefed and then referred by the district judge to the magistrate judge for a recommendation.  What's the magistrate do . . . decides Spain is right and recommends the case be dismissed.

I read the decision.  It's well written and if it captures the presentations correctly, then the salvor may not have had much of an argument.  The gist of the Court's decision is that Spain never gave up its ownership rights to the sunken warship, and that it possesses a sovereign interest in preserving the wreck and its contents.

Why was the case pending in Florida, you ask?  The salvor brought some of the booty into the jurisdiction of the Middle District of Florida (Tampa area) and commenced an in rem action.  Under the law of finds, the Salvor sought possessory rights and ownership over what it had recovered as well as the wreck's remains.

It's an interesting case and if you want to read the full decision, let me know.  I'll keep an eye on the docket and report back on whether the district judge adopts the magistrate's recommendation.  (FYI, I'm voting it's adopted hook, line and sinker.)

Underway and making way.

--- JKF

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink