T&T: abandoned & salvage

[Ron Rogers]

I'm glad that someone with a better understanding of law and custom has 
commented. And most folks who read the site that I referenced should have 
grasped this. I got the peril concept.

BUT DARN IT, the USCG towed the vessel , not the fishing folk! Because it 
was a suspicious circumstance, the USCG told them to stand by the vessel. 
Largely because the "salvors" had to be considered suspects.

In my lay opinion, and "I'm unanimous in this," the best these clowns can 
hope to get is compensation for a few hours on-site and the fish that they 
can prove, based upon their history, they lost out on. That and eternal 
damnation.

Now, George wants his ears scratched.

Ron Rogers

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas Gould" <doug at 5goulds.com>


| Rich wrote:
| >In the present case, the owner was apparently the missing skipper's
| >daughter, since the account I saw said he'd signed it over to her. If you
| >follow the thread from my earlier experience, if the vessel is in no
| >immediate danger of loss, and the OWNER does not officially abandon it,
| >nobody has any right to tow it, board it, or in any way molest the vessel
| >without permission from the owner. I imagine a maritime lawyer worth his
| >salt (pun intended) can quickly dispatch the case of the fisher persons.
| >Too bad the owner will have the aggravation and expense of the lawyer.
|
|
| The glitch here is "immediate danger", which is NOT a prerequisite for a 
sucessfull salvage.
| One quote from the US Supreme Court about peril is "either immediate or 
that which could be
| reasonably apprehended"....which could mean 'eventually'. Nor does there 
need to be a potential
| complete loss; damage that could reasonably be the result of inaction is 
enough to warrant a salvage
| claim.
|
| When a vessel could be construed to be in, or soon to be in, peril of 
damage or loss, and no
| one is on board, the courts will almost always deem that the vessel is 
actually asking for help.
| And, that any prudent owner would have accepted such help had they had 
complete understanding of
| the situation. Salvage law allows for the hypothetical hindsight: imagine 
that the fishermen in this case actually
| called the real owner, described the situation, and offered to help in 
return for some money. Most
| owners would probably say YES.
|
| What I read on this listserve was that the vessel was anchored many miles 
from shore, so even though
| the vessel was anchored, she was still at the mercy of the elements; not a 
particularly prudent way to
| leave a vessel for any period of time. I think it is reasonable to 
conclude that the operator was gone.
|
| A salvage contract with a unattended vessel is considered "in rem", which 
means that the vessel actually
| made the contract. (one of the few instances in law that an inanimate 
object is considered a party to a legally
| binding contract). In such a case, no permission from any owner is needed 
to sign the deal.
|
| How much of an "award" is granted to the salvor is for the courts to 
decide. Historically, courts have been
| very generous, as an incentive to others that boats and ships continue to 
be saved, rather than left to flounder and
| litter our shores.