OceanGate Is Getting Majorly Sued

OceanGate Is Getting Majorly Sued

Not even the lawyers can save you.πŸ’‘Go to https://legaleagle.link/brilliant and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! βš–οΈβš–οΈβš–οΈ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam Watch the rest of Real Engineering’s video here: https://youtu.be/6LcGrLnzYuU

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
πŸš€ Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! https://legaleagle.link/watchnebula
πŸ‘” Suits by Indochino! https://legaleagle.link/indochino

Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show

Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! https://legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! https://legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse

Twitter: https://legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: https://legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: https://legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: https://legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: https://legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: https://legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans https://legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon https://legaleagle.link/patreon

Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (https://pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

You may also like...

48 Responses

  1. LegalEagle says:

    βš– Think the waiver will hold up?
    πŸ’‘Learn interactively with Brilliant! https://legaleagle.link/brilliant

    • Elden Ringer says:

      Great work as always. Thank you Devin. Question: can the taxpayers and or governments of the rescuers involved sue the estate of the billionaires to pay back the cost of the rescue and the unnecessary risk they put the rescuers in?

    • Tiyath says:

      If it holds up or not, giving a corporation another loophole because protecting them from bankruptcy is more important than holding them accountable to their negligence and compensating the next of kin is peak capitalism and effed up af

    • Lan Mandragoran says:

      Well….they couldn’t call it WaterGate, could they.

    • Waynes butler says:

      No any good legal defense would destroy the validity of these waivers . a waiver does not absolve a company from their legal duties to provide safe equipment and a protected environment for patrons or passengers in this case . While your waiver does require you to accept personal responsibility for injuries due to normal participation, it does not require you to accept responsibility for a business who makes safety errors . For example, if you signed a waiver to bungee jump with a service, you rely on the technicians to properly calibrate the cords and provide safe harnesses. If you are injured because of faulty equipment or improper procedure due to blatant employee error, you have a case for a personal injury lawsuit.

    • Blackmark52 says:

      I didn’t realize that OceanGate did so many practice runs to achieve the disaster. Can’t be sued for success, eh.

  2. Thomas Kilmer says:

    If this *isn’t* gross negligence, I literally cannot imagine what could qualify.

    • Cameron Gill says:

      Your honour, it’s only gross negligence if Stockton Rush personally beat all the passengers to death before the implosion of vessel he designed without any of the industry-standard safety mechanisms and about which multiple safety concerns were recently raised.

    • Damp says:

      grossest negligence?

    • Johnson Tao says:

      What’s the opioid crisis, and FDA’s delay on releasing the “post marketing” data about the massive mRNA injections with its phase 3 clinical trials cut short, just to name a few.

    • Timmycakes99 says:

      @Damp That’s pretty funny

    • Gregory Morse says:

      It did make 13 successful dives to the Titanic. So I doubt it’s a simple as the simpleton commenter is implying. Making stupid reactionary comments is easy. But doing proper legal analysis isn’t. Notice in the video he didn’t rush to conclusions but left it as a “could be” gross negligence. One sided comments show shallowness in depth of thinking. This commenters brain would implode possibly if they dared to try to use it properly.

  3. Boris MΓΌller says:

    β€œThat is definitely a distinct possibility” is about as close as you can get a lawyer to saying β€œyes”.

    • David says:

      Ask a lawyer a legal question.
      Lawyer: which side am I on?

    • Bryan Ergau says:

      Somebody animated a CGI video of what the failure probably looked like. The red cloud that shoots out is all I can see when I hear that guy trying to defend his extremely shoddy craftsmanship.

  4. Pajander says:

    If the window was only rated for 1300 meters doesn’t that already instantly invalidate all waivers? That in itself means they knowingly lied every time they said that the sub can dive to 4000 meters.

    • Cheery Rhymes says:

      Yep, if anything they would have been better off with an unrated viewpoint in my opinion.

      Designing and having a custom viewport built that you believe will be strong enough without an independent rating is probably better from a PR point of view than having a a tested and reliable company say ‘this should only be used to 1300m and no deeper’.

      Ultimately having an underrated viewport was probably better than having an unrated one designed by an idiot but it looks worse in my opinion.

    • LeSarthois says:

      I’m not sure. OceanGate will probably argue that the viewport dived a dozen time to the Titanic already. And we don’t know yet but so far, it seems that the sub failure was on the hull, not the viewport.
      The 1300m rating doesn’t mean that the viewport will fail if going deeper (and OceanGate will certainly argue about it) but it mean that the manufacturer didn’t bothered to test it or didn’t certified it for various reason (like fatigue. Maybe they wanted to sell the viewport as having a 500 or 1000 diving cycles and going 4000 meter reduced that cycle to 10 or 20 times).
      Now of course, do’nt get me wrong, I think everything that could have been done wrong was done wrong, but the viewport not being rated for 4000m may not be the most solid angle of attack, even if it’s one of the most obvious ones. But it will certainly add up to the pile of “things done wrong”.

    • Francesco Nicoletti says:

      @LeSarthoisan unrated part not disclosed to the dive members would seem to invalidate the wavers as the company knowingly used a part that was not safe a the dive depth. If that information was in the wavers and the passengers still signed ( because of your reasoning for instance ) then fine. But the β€œ withheld information from the purchaser β€œ legal clause seems very evident here. Even if that particular danger did not cause the failure. I suspect by the time the litigants are through with discovery there will be a gigantic list of β€œ withheld information from the purchaser β€œ items.

    • Bryan Ergau says:

      They meant if you take out the window and go anyways.

  5. PFP Chad says:

    This tragedy has exonerated the guy who was fired and everyone who tried to bring light to what Oceangate was doing wrong.

    • Lisa Simpson Rules says:

      I hope the best for this employee. If I had a company working on the submarine field, I would hire this guy straight away: he knows what he is doing and he looks like he is the best person to lead a team and make sure that everything is alright. The guy couldn’t have tried harder to report on OceanGate’s crappy practices harder, to a lot of annoyance and financial cost to himself.

    • James Meow says:

      ​@LisaSimpsonRules agreed he is a good worker and good person, if I was a customer I would love to have this employee watching out for my safety

    • Kenobi says:

      Nah, he’s swimming with the fishes, more like swimming in the lake of fire with Satan

  6. Jon Asgaeroth says:

    Sending people into 6000 psi water in a carbon fiber tube should be classified as gross negligence. He had people from all over the world yelling at him to stop this madness for years. It wasn’t a reasonable thing to do.

    • Ego Alter says:

      I’d have no problem if this was a twchnology demonstrator meant to test novel submarine construction techniques. The problem is he made it a tourist bus.

  7. Charles Pletzke says:

    What a surprise, a company whose name ends in β€œgate” being shrouded in controversy

  8. Christian Holway says:

    They fired someone over a safety concern. That’s gotta be gross negligence

    • Scott Tilden says:

      Or criminal negligence.

    • Cailalange says:

      Also sued him; plus threatened others with lawsuits when they brought safety issues up.

    • Lord Biscuit the Tossable says:

      I think that’s the thing. Being a dangerous activity is one thing, but going out of its way to bury the likelihood will contribute towards the companies downfall. It was aware that it’s submarine wasn’t up to the task.

    • Gurvinder Parmar says:

      Depends on the state it happened in. If it was an at will employment state, it doesn’t matter one bit as the person can be fired for ANY reason and that reason doesn’t even have to be conveyed.

    • D H says:

      Seems to be fine for Alec Baldwin and he straight murdered someone.

  9. LatinoBadass says:

    I still cannot believe that right after this incident they still had the balls to announce more deep divings. Like “oh PR damage control? Whats that?”

  10. Joey Cote says:

    Ah yes. Let us all trust that “companies will do the right thing” when it comes to being responsible citizens.

    • Laxyr says:

      You can trust that they will do anything to maximize their profits. Luckily, most companies recognize that killing your customers will hurt their profits in the long run.

    • sandy says:

      … and charge you a bucket load of money too.

    • Clau-chau Nicol says:

      ​@Laxyrdo they though? With the way the fast fashion industry is killing the planet I really don’t think most big companies are interested in looking to the long term future.

    • Leyrua says:

      ​@Clau-chau NicolThe difference is that killing the planet comes with deniability. But if you DIRECTLY kill your customers, people can trace the cause and effect more easily.

    • Djeaux says:

      ​@LaxyrTell that to the tobacco industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *