In Reply to: In English??? nt posted by Hilary on February 21, 2006 at 21:33:07:

“Arntz, as an owner pro hac vice of M/V Sundiver, filed a Complaint for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability within the meaning of the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 185-91 ("the Act"). The Act, in relevant part, limits shipowner liability for negligence unless the negligence was within the shipowner’s "privity or knowledge." 46 U.S.C. app. § 183(a); In re Bowfin M/V, 339 F.3d 1137, 1137 (9 th Cir. 2003). In the instant motion, Carlock argues that Arntz cannot take advantage of the Act because he was operating the Sundiver vessel at the time of the Incident and thus necessarily had privity or knowledge of the alleged negligence that caused Carlock to be left behind.”

The Captain and his lawyer(s) are seeking limitation of liability under the Federal maritime act (US Code 185-191) on the basis of not having known about the divemaster’s incredible dumm-azz mistake of leaving Dan behind.

Dan’s lawyers argued instead that the Federal limitation in not applicable to the Captain.

The judge ruled that the Captain is allowed to proceed with his defense case, and that the maritime act may possible limit his liability if he can prove its applicability.

The Captain and his lawyers still need to prove that all elements of the maritime act were met. This is round 2 of a 15 round bout.

The dive shop and the divemaster have no such liability limitation clauses in the law to protect them. The dive shop is guilty of hiring a dummazz and the divemaster is guilty of being a dummazz. And thus Dan was set adrift. But the Captain is going to get most of the blame, however the Federal Act limits the amount of that claim.

That is what it says, in plain english (small e).