10,000 Lawsuits Under the Sea
Yes, those people in that submarine can and will sue the submarine company. They probably signed some liability release or waiver, but those liability waivers rarely protect a business when that business is negligent. A business cannot escape the consequences of its own negligence by having people sign liability waivers. Almost all injury lawsuits against a business involve allegations that the business was negligent. Those liability waivers do not protect businesses from the most common type of lawsuits.
But for the families of the submarine victims, it won’t be that easy. The company that owned and operated the Titan submarine, OceanGate, was based out of Seattle, Washington, but the company has already closed its headquarters “indefinitely.” You can bet that they will file bankruptcy, and there may not a be a company to sue. And where do you file a lawsuit when your loved one died a mile under the surface of the sea? The closest country to the wreck site is Canada, but the implosion happened in international waters. I presume there are laws that govern international water wreck and other mishaps, but I sure don’t know them.
Another legal mess arises when you think about the life insurance the rich people in that submarine had coving their lives. I would bet my house that those insurance companies are going to refuse to pay life insurance proceeds, saying that they do not pay when their insured goes on practically a suicide-mission to the bottom of the sea. It is a shame that all the people coming out now saying “I knew it was a death trap” did not speak out before last week’s tragedy, and many of those people may get sued for not speaking up. It seems clear now, after the fact, that the Titan should not have been in operations, and I feel sorry for the families who lost their loved ones and will be stuck in litigation for years trying to hold OceanGate responsible.
Unequal Treatment Is Ok, Sometimes
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed in 1978. It was adopted to stop the destruction of Native American families being caused by unethical and racist local child protection officials throughout the country. To put it simply, the ICWA gives the natural parents of Native American children the right to keep their children regardless of what local child services officials think is right, and regardless of adoption laws. That description would make ICWA experts cringe, but that is the gist of it. The ICWA had been upheld several times by the Supreme Court in individual adoption cases where Native American parents who gave up their children for adoption come back years later and want their children back.
The opponents against ICWA took a different approach in Haaland v. Brackeen, a lawsuit brought by Texas and six other states alleging that the ICWA is unconstitutional because it is racist. The lawsuit argued that the ICWA violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it gave unequal protection to Native American parents. The court agreed, the ICWA does give Native American parents unequal rights, but the Constitution allows unequal treatment when there is a “compelling interest” for the unequal treatment. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of ICWA, recognizing the “unique political status of tribal nations” and holding that this unique state and the need to protect Native American families was a “compelling interest.” The lesson: be careful adopting a Native American child; the law can treat people differently by race when there is a very good reason behind that unequal treatment.
Pleading “Biden”
Hunter Biden entered his plea of being a Biden last week and got zero prison time for a felon gun charge that carries 10 years in prison. Hunter Biden was charged with two misdemeanor tax offenses and a felony firearm offense. The tax offenses are run-of-the-mill scumbag stuff, and it is no surprise that he gets a slap on the wrist for those charges. The firearm charges are a different matter. It is a felony, a serious criminal charge. Joe Biden and his team go on and on about the need for stronger gun laws, and the Blue Team loses credibility when it goes along with Hunter Biden skating on a felony gun charge. “Enforce the laws already on the books,” the Red Team says, and the Hunter Biden deal give the Red Team ammunition to throw that point in the Blue Team’s face. It is very, very rare for prosecutors to have misdemeanor and felony charges against a defendant and agree to dismiss the serious felony charge and take guilty pleas on the piddly misdemeanor charges. Make no mistake, the Hunter Biden charges and resolution were an inside, backroom deal protecting the son of the President. Blue Team or Red Team—that is just a fact. And it is an inconvenient fact for any politician on the same side as the Bidens who want to claim gun laws are the problem.
Mitchell Driskell practices law with the Tannehill Carmean firm and has been an Oxford lawyer for twenty two years. You can call him at 662.236.9996 and email him at mitchell@tannehillcarmean.com. He practices criminal law, civil law, and family law.
