Beneath The Surface Of The Titan Submersible Disaster Lies A Legal Storm

The echo of the Titan submersible’s tragedy continues to reverberate throughout the legal, scientific, and oceanographic communities.

The looming question, though, is whether the victims’ families can pursue a lawsuit, despite having signed extensive waivers beforehand. It’s a thought that’s stirred considerable debate, as evidenced in a recent video by trial lawyer Devin Stone on his YouTube channel “LegalEagle.”

Stone drew attention to one term in particular: Gross negligence.

Legal Implications Of Titan Submersible's Tragedy

The lawyer said gross negligence could potentially override any waivers signed by the victims, which could form the basis of a lawsuit, especially given the evidence surrounding the Titan submersible’s design and operation.

Benzinga has contacted OceanGate for comment on possible legal ramifications from the Titan’s implosion.

One piece of evidence, Stone noted, is a quote from a New Yorker story detailing the sub’s convoluted control system: “And now you have the hand controller talking to a Wi-Fi unit, which is talking to a black box, which is talking to the sub's thrusters. There were multiple points of failure.”

Material Concerns and Misleading Claims

Part of the complexity comes from Titan’s origins, as the vessel was adapted from the Cyclops 1 design, a submersible engineered to withstand depths of 500 meters. Titan was intended to dive eight times deeper, to 4000 meters.

OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush kept most of the Cyclops 1 design elements for the Titan, Stone noted.

Read also: Titan Sank For 48 Seconds Before Imploding, Expert Paints Grim Picture

Even more troubling was the choice of materials.

The waivers signed by the victims noted that the Titan was “an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human-occupied submersibles.”

Specifically, the vessel was constructed of carbon fiber, a material not known for its compressive strength, a critical factor for deep-sea exploration.

James Cameron, director and veteran of deep-sea exploration, was among those who voiced concern about the Titan’s carbon fiber construction, labeling it “fundamentally flawed.”

Cameron's concerns were echoed by 38 members of the Underwater Vehicles Committee of the Marine Technology Society, who wrote to OceanGate in 2018 saying that the company was “misleading the public,” about the safety of the submersible.

Stone said the previously voiced concerns could form the basis of a gross negligence lawsuit, saying that the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly deviated from standard industry care.

Evasion of Regulations And Jurisdictional Complexities

However, the case is further complicated by the question of jurisdiction. With investigations launched by both the U.S. and Canada, and the victims being from England, Pakistan, France, and the U.S., it’s unclear which country’s laws will apply.

More to that, Stone said OceanGate appears to have taken steps to evade regulations, classifying the passengers as “mission specialists” and their $250,000 fees as “donations.”

The wording may have allowed the Titan to operate with fewer than six passengers, bypassing the need for inspection.

Read next: Innovation Or Negligence? OceanGate’s Tragic Consequences Of Betting On Inexperience

Photo: Shutterstock