OceanGate Is Getting Majorly Sued
Not even the lawyers can save you.💡Go to https://legaleagle.link/brilliant and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! ⚖️⚖️⚖️ 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.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! https://legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! https://legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
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
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
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
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
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
⚖ Think the waiver will hold up?
💡Learn interactively with Brilliant! https://legaleagle.link/brilliant
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?
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
Well….they couldn’t call it WaterGate, could they.
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.
I didn’t realize that OceanGate did so many practice runs to achieve the disaster. Can’t be sued for success, eh.
If this *isn’t* gross negligence, I literally cannot imagine what could qualify.
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.
grossest negligence?
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.
@Damp That’s pretty funny
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.
“That is definitely a distinct possibility” is about as close as you can get a lawyer to saying “yes”.
Ask a lawyer a legal question.
Lawyer: which side am I on?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
@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 “ withheld information from the purchaser “ 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 “ withheld information from the purchaser “ items.
They meant if you take out the window and go anyways.
This tragedy has exonerated the guy who was fired and everyone who tried to bring light to what Oceangate was doing wrong.
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.
@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
Nah, he’s swimming with the fishes, more like swimming in the lake of fire with Satan
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.
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.
What a surprise, a company whose name ends in “gate” being shrouded in controversy
Yeah it’s almost like they knew.
Oceangate gate?
Seriously. When I first heard about this I thought it was just Ocean and the internet added gate afterward.
They fired someone over a safety concern. That’s gotta be gross negligence
Or criminal negligence.
Also sued him; plus threatened others with lawsuits when they brought safety issues up.
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.
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.
Seems to be fine for Alec Baldwin and he straight murdered someone.
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?”
They WHAT??
The Audacity!
They didn’t announce any more dives, they just hadn’t removed them from their website yet
Damn, I almost respect that. Almost.
For PR purposes what if Oceangate offered to pay you $250,000 to go down to the Titanic, would you do it?
@YOUTUBE Is Greathell yeah my family can finally live comfortably
Ah yes. Let us all trust that “companies will do the right thing” when it comes to being responsible citizens.
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.
… and charge you a bucket load of money too.
@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.
@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.
@LaxyrTell that to the tobacco industry.