BUSINESS LAW: CASE ANALYSIS 1
On October 15, 2003, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the M/V Andrew J. Barberi, en route from Manhattan to Staten Island went off its course and collided at full speed into a concrete maintenance pier just 1800 feet south of the slip at which it was intended to dock.
That day the vessel, with a 6000 passenger capacity, was carrying nearly 1500 people. It traveled on a day that was clear but windy, one deemed acceptable for travel. Traveling at a typical speed of 14-16 knots the ferry had the ability to come to a full stop in 43 seconds in a space of 420 feet.
On this day the ferry was commanded by Captain Michael Gansas who in turn assigned Assistant Captain Richard Smith to the helm. Both men met the requirements of the coast Guard regulations as certified as first-class pilots and both were licensed. Both men had consistently received positive performance reviews over more than ten years of experience with the Staten Island Ferry.
Smith steered the ferry, accompanied by deckhand, Joseph Selch, who was assigned as a lookout, while Ganas, leaving Smith alone at the helm without reservation, was near the rear of the vessel making preparations for a future Coast Guard inspection. Selch and Smith carried on normal conversations throughout the trip.
With just 3000 feet, to be traveled in two minutes, left to the journey, Selch was released from his lookout duties to go and prepare for docking. Smith was left alone in the pilothouse with Senior Mate Robert Rush who had earlier joined them. Without any assigned duties Rush was seated with no ability to observe the waterway and the situation beyond the pilothouse.
At the point at which the ferry operator would normally begin the process necessary to slow the vessel down, Smith, as stated in the Case Analysis, “lost conscious or situational awareness” (p. 2) which resulted in the collision.
Smith who remained standing at the helm, could not recall anything from the time Selch left the pilothouse until the crash. Rush, who remained seated and had not noticed anything unusual about Smith or the trip until the crash, confirmed that Smith had remained standing and had commented with only one word, after the crash. It was determined by physicians that the incident was the result of a condition caused by fatigue.
The crash caused the death of ten passengers, the serious injury of nineteen passengers, one who later succumbed to the injuries, and the minor injuries of fifty-seven passengers. In addition the collision caused significant damage to the ferry and destroyed the pier.
Smith, who was suffering from and treating numerous conditions that hindered acceptable job performance, as stated in the Case Study, “pleaded guilty to eleven counts of …manslaughter, … negligently causing the deaths of passengers, and … making false statements to the Coast Guard…” (p. 2). His primary sentence was 18 months in prison.
Patrick Ryan, director of ferry operations, pleaded guilty to seaman’s manslaughter, making false statements to the Coast Guard regarding the way he operated a ferry when he was a captain. He prison sentence was a year and a day.
Liuzzo states, “the tort [a private wrong that injures another person’s physical well-being, property, or reputation] of negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care necessary to protect others from risk of harm” (p. 52 & 539).
The circumstances of this accident must be considered when determining whether or not New York City (NYC) was negligent. It must be determined if the accident could have been avoided if NYC had acted reasonably. In other words was it an avoidable or unavoidable accident. If the accident could have been avoided by action taken by NYC by using sound judgment, being fair, and exercising good sense, in other words being reasonable, then they acted in a way that was negligent.
I believe that in this case NYC did act in a negligent manner when they did not require two captains at the helm throughout the trip. I believe they understood the importance of having two captains actively on duty in the pilothouse as evidenced in their own internal rules. They had on record as noted in the case study the “two-pilot rule that generally required the captain and assistant captain to be together in the operating pilothouse while the [ferry was] underway” (p.2). I think their use of the word “generally” was placed there as a possible means of defense should a situation arise where there were not two there, possibly one had to use the bathroom for example. The internal rule shows that they knew that the best practice is to have two there, which is why they had the internal policy. It is also quite likely they advertise this policy to their insurance carrier and any agencies that have authority over them, which reinforces their understanding that it was necessary.
NYC was and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system whereby they know and enforce their internal rules. It is not sufficient to have rules on record. They should be held accountable for what they profess to be their standards of operation.
I wonder if Gansas was ever considered negligent for allowing Smith to be in the pilothouse alone. Gansas certainly had to be aware of the internal policy. He might be charged with what Liuzzo described as “vicarious negligence…charging a negligent act of one person [Smith] to another [Gansas]” (p. 53). NYC’s negligence might be vicarious as well.
NYC committed the tort of negligence. They committed, as described by the Legal Information Institute, “… wrongs [that] result[ed] in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party” (Retrieved from http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort). As a result there should be punishment in the form of relief for the damages incurred and it should be severe enough to deter others from committing the same harms. (Retrieved from http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort). NYC is responsible for a great deal of loss. In this case their negligence created liability.

References
Case Analysis 1: In re: City of New York v. Shiram Agni, 522 /f, 3d 279 (2nd Cir. 2008).
Liuzzo, A.L. (2010). Essentials of BUSINESS LAW. (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort