OceanGate Is Getting Majorly Sued
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- Not even the lawyers can save you.💡Go to legaleagle.link/brilliant and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam Watch the rest of Real Engineering's video here: • The Questionable Engin...
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! 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! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon 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 (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖ Think the waiver will hold up?
💡Learn interactively with Brilliant! 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.
How bonkers is it that they named themselves OceanGate, like they knew they were going to be a scandal.
The scandal is OceanGategate then, I guess.
I was thinking the same!
No comparison since this actually happened.
@@keylimepython641 the Moon Moon of scandals
@@lechatbotte. What comparison?
There's a saying in the safety and security engineering spheres that goes : "If you think security measures are expensive, wait till you pay for an accident."
*Taps forehead* don't have to pay if the accident kills you!
The corollary to "Skilled labor isn't cheap, and cheap labor isn't skilled." or "If you don't want to pay now, you're going to pay even more later."
There is a whole corner of actuarial work that's basically just factoring the cost of lawsuits against the cost of safety measures and determining if it's cheaper to just pay out lawsuits to the human beings you harm or kill.
As an engineer, I find this absolutely disgusting, but it's definitely not always more expensive to have a mishap.
Unfortunately the responsible won't be facing the consequences of killing people because he killed himself
there is another saying:
"safety regulations are written in blood."
now it's his blood.
* implodes and turns into underwater soup *
I was in a submarine before, when I was a young girl in girl scouts. We were learning about naval military, went through a whole museum and then spent the night on the sub.
We got an entire safety tour beforehand and they weren't even moving the sub! They only barely submerged it sp you could say you slept underwater. You could quite literally swim up in less than 10 second if there were an emergency.
We signed a waiver and everything, but for such a small small danger they still had about 18 different emergency escape plans and a guide who stayed the night with us. There were 2 different alarm systems and a way for us to rise if we needed to that everyone was shown, even the 5 and 6 year olds.
I cannot imagine getting into something that dangerous and having people pretend it was completely safe and the risk of harm was "silly". I was in one of the safest submarines probably ever, barely went under the water and people still made the risks and dangers very very VERY clear to us.
💀
Arrogance and Greed are factors here
That's such a cool trip, though. I bet you had a ton of fun
@@rkah6187 oh my goodness! So so so much fun! I learned a LOT and actually got to meet a few veterans who work at the museum now. Plus the museum itself had some really neat interactive stuff.
Note for people considering it; do NOT go with amyone who has had any kind of spinal, knee, leg or back surgery. Those halls are very very small and you have to step over pretty big ledges to move around the sub, and the beds are metal underneath a thin pad. My poor grandma ached for days after.
It's also much louder than you expect it to but when they start submerging, and scared the crap outta me 😂 so be prepared for that as well.
@@anubianthe1335And just the fact that having money rots your brain
Imagine all the pressure the CEO is under.
💀💀
took me a sec to get it - 💀- literally
Does He Know???
Bruv
He must be crushed
Absolute madness that they clearly consulted multiple lawyers but seemingly not a single engineer
Very true.
No, they consulted at least one engineer, who told them it was unsafe and to not use it (apparently he was able to put a flashlight on one side of the carbon fiber hull and witness light streaming through the hull), so they fired him because he refused to sign off on it, so he took his complaint to OSHA (for the employees they forced into it) and then the coast guard, but no one would do anything & he had limited cash to pursue them because… y’know. He’d recently been fired.
They consulted many engineers...and then fired all the ones who didn't agree with them.
Not madness, greed is more than enough.
Just Billionaire Things
They fired someone over a safety concern. That’s gotta be gross 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.
@@dh4917 Negligent! manslaughter!
In my opinion, this game controller was probably most reliable part of the ship. Well tested, produced in millions of pieces, resistant to brutal use by children. And they had a few on board to spare. It's failure is the last thing I would suspect.
I think you are right. It was, I'm sure, an engineer designed, well tested, commercial product. The hull, on the other hand, used carbon fibre in a way it has never been used before and to which it does not appear suited. I regularly trust my life to a glass-reinforced plastic aircraft which uses the material in ways which are well understood and known to be safe.
It uses Bluetooth and has three points of potential failure. It also has a rep for connection issues. If it was a wired controller, or even one using IR, you might have a point. But Bluetooth is a technological abomination that only survives because of ubiquity, despite its many, many flaws.
Compared to all the other issues, I absolutely agree. The controller was likely the best part of that sub.
@@morrigan908 Not exactly a high bar to clear. Hardware wise, I'd reluctantly agree. Were it wired, I wouldn't be reluctant.
@@Nixeu42 Fair statement. Swap it out for wired and it'd definitely be the best part of the sub.
For some reason, I assumed "OceanGate" was just a "Watergate" type media label. The fact it's ACTUALLY the company's name... 🤯
Yeah, OceanGate is a synonym of WaterGate
No.
Yes after its owner -BILL GATES
@@missmarya747Uh no
ME TOO
There's a quote that I heard that says "Safety Regulations are written in blood." Well these guys proved it true.
More red regulations inbound
Well, in this case the regulations proved the sense of safety regulations, because he blatantly ignored them. Psychopathy, really, to take others with you, basically murdering them.
@@robertnope1993if so e one has the resources and ambition to build a "submersible" and con other rich ppl into going under with them, there isn't a whole lot regulation will do to stop him. All it will do is stop an industry from forming around an idea. But tbh maybe tourist trips to a mass grave isn't necessary.
Clause 2 pretty much says "we are neglecting safety regulations", it may also be argued the moment they took on civilian passengers, they were no longer experimental and were liable to adhere to regulations.
So its going to be tough for them to defend... especially since their only and most vocal spokesperson for ditching safety regulations is also a victim of his own disregard.
In this case it's more like regulations are written in the gelatinous goo the fluids and soft body tissues spontaneously get turned into when exposed to extreme decompression when the air pressure inside the submersible was relieved instantaneously followed by the extreme pressure from that water depth.
"They aren't tourists if you call them Mission Specialists" is so similar to "They aren't employees if you call them contractors."
Or “cast members”
@@gabrielle4821 or Uber's "driver partners"
Or "MLM commission makers"
Also, they aren’t “employees” if you instead call them “student athletes.” (Meaning, of course, if they get hurt or suffer a debilitating injury; you don’t have to worry about paying any sort of compensation.)
They arent laws if you call them “guidelines”
One thing that stood out to me in the waiver was the sentence that said something along the lines of “these hazards and risks are a normal part of any ocean expedition, and are unavoidable”. To me, that sounds like they’re telling people that the risk that they assumed on the Titan was the same as the risk of any other similar expedition, and was the industry standard, which it very clearly was not. They also mislead people about lack of certification by suggesting that they don’t need to be certified because their testing was far more rigorous than the industry standard certification methods. Another clear lie.
who could have for scene this issue not just the lawyers I saw it coming and plenty of others also saw it coming in advance of it actually coming seriously
The fact that so many people went on this tour who had money and were like "yeah that was weird and mega sketch" and then did it MULTIPLE times baffles me to no end.
Yeah.
It's the 'well i was fine' disconnect that contributed to previous passagers having a second or third go.
People who can spend alot of money comfterably tend to ignore the details
Yeah. Tons of people went on the trip tons of times. Yes, it was catastropic the final time, but saying "Five people were willing to accept extraordinary risks in order to see the Titanics ruins." is a bit like saying 10 people were willing to go into Disneyland in 2023 even though there is a risk of slipping on a mouse there. While more or less true, the number is Wildly misleading to the point of more untrue than true. One person in the USA owns a gun. Yes, but...
@@nordicmind82 I would argue in a silo that logic is applicable. Personally if I went on the "sub" saw the game controller and heard cracking as we went deeper, not sure I'd be jumping at the what $250k USD price tag to take that risk again.
The smugness of the CEO was absolutely off the charts. His arrogance lead to his death and the deaths of the others on board.
In saying that, he must have felt pretty confident in his submarine, having dived in it many times. Either he was stupid or didn't care about his life, let alone the passengers.
To fly in your own personal plane you built yourself and regularly use it to get from A to B like a car I guess makes one arrogant in a league miles apart to a iPhone using Amazon product buyer who drives their safety-equipment loaded car with no open alchohol in case invalidates insurance
@@nzoomedsubversive*
Even lower tier than submarine
@@alexandermccalla5098submersible not subversive 😫
I truly think it's what he wanted. Dude had a death wish. And who knows, maybe he wanted to take as many as possible with him? It ain't beyond the realm of possibility..........🥴
A very valuable lesson to take from this: just because the inventor joins you, doesn't mean it's 100% safe.
Yep and actually it Rush probably was getting a rush out of knowing the problems and developing workarounds on the fly
The CEO wanted to send other people instead of going himself, he went only after his employees refused.
@@zlamanit what an ignorant and selfish guy. 250k was slipping through his fingers and couldn't let it go....sad
Didn't the guy who made the Titanic also die onboard? Weird coincidence
Seems pretty obvious to me.
To me, the only tragic thing is that Rush took four other people with him.
It's kind of amazing that a vessel that was deliberately shoddy isn't an open-and-shut case.
Not really if you think about it for even 3 seconds and have a brain, too.
"While at this point we know there will be lots of lawsuits"....how do we know that? This guy is just guessing. As far as I'm aware, no such lawsuit has been filed.
@@sarahbrown5073 Well not yet at least. There is a lot of prep before you even get to initial filing. Potential lawyers gotta check that injured parties got a case first and that can take months esp for complicated cases.
Think about it for 2 seconds. The fact that it was DELIBERATELY shoddy is actually an extremely strong defense. The blog talks about how it intentionally is not certified because they are trying to innovate. The waiver says you may die. The waiver explicitly says it uses unregulated and even untested materials and construction. You agree to that. HOW TF is that their fault?
Seriously, people like you would prefer nanny government traps us all into padded rooms for our own protection. If people want to do crazy innovative stuff with a high chance of failure/death then I see absolutely no problem with that as long as they are honest and transparent about it, which OceanGate very much was.
@sujimane the people on that sub didn’t have either
Every time I hear about anyone decrying or evading regulations I remember the phrase "regulations are written in blood." This is a great example of that.
Exactly!! Some people have spent so long crying “government overreach, they just want to hamper industry” that a lot of people don’t seem to realize what it actually takes to get regulations passed…as you said, the price is paid in the blood of innocent people dying because of other peoples unwillingness to do their due diligence.
We wouldn’t need regulations if everyone was a good and reasonable person…
True, I think about these regulations in Indiana law whenever I think about that saying:
"Mustaches are illegal if the bearer has a tendency to habitually kiss other humans"
"Baths may not be taken between the months of October and March."
Ooooofff I’ll remember that one 😅
@@von... The mustache one is just silly, but the baths one sounds like a very old law meant to stop people from accidentally dying of hypothermia during the cold months.
@@Toastybees Yeah, I'm glad to have automatic indoor plumbing with heating of both water in the plumbing and the home itself.
If the waiver had included, "I understand that Oceangate has been warned multiple times in writing by industry experts that our vessel is unsafe and is putting passengers in peril." I'm thinking that nobody would have signed.
The issue is the difference between the writings and what Rush told the people he was bringing into the sub.
He would have claimed that the mention you added had been included because those other "industry experts" are just people who hate him and try to destroy his company by pushing for non-necessary procedures.
I don't know. If you're willing to sign the actual waver, you might be willing to sign anything.
It should also include that "OceanGate have literally no idea of how many submersions their submarine should resist, and anyone should know that any of the travels could be the last one"
Not a laywer but that may honestly just would have made the waiver unenforceable tbh
Who knows with these idiot rich people?
5:23 "Hey, you're gonna die from a broken window two miles underwater but you'll at least have maybe a second if that's warning."
That's seriously what Rush said.
and then every time something did make a sound or a warning sing he dismissed it. just disgusting man
0:54 "And they've now joined the exclusive club that they were so fascinated with" is the greatest line
I've heard how badly the titan submergable has failed by engineers, physicals nerds, titanic experts, sub experts and now, a lawyer. Now I really want an old crusty sea captain with a pipe going "Yarr... the sea is a cruel mistress." and then explaining how badly it failed.
✨️✨️✨️✨️✨️😆😁🤣🫠🤣🤣🤣🤣
Best comment. 10/10
I should ask my brother. He can do the most hilarious crusty old pirate imitation.
Dress him up with a pipe and an eye patch, film him, and watch it go viral.
Can it be the sea captain from The Simpsons?
I can't imagine being told "you're gonna kill somebody if you keep doing this" and my primary emotional response being petulant annoyance.
And yet it happens all the time 😢
Because you don't actually want to kill anyone. I think Stockton Rush did. He had a death wish and wanted sacrifices to go down with him. He's become famous, had a painless death, and his grave is by the Titanic. His imminent implosion alert system gave enough warning for him to watch everyone on board process that they were his. They were dying for his madness. Maybe he even told them so.
His company was losing the submersibles race and his ego couldn't handle it. Before he became forgotten and passed over, he chose "a life cut short" where he wasn't to blame for his lack of achievement. Oh, what he could have done if not for this tragically planned accident.
what annoys me is how he was acting like some pioneer, some brave and trailblazing test pilot or something, while selling tickets to the public using a legal loophole. like if it was just his own dumbass life on the line sure, go ahead and act like safety measures are a rain on your parade, but yeah, him being annoyed was some deluded bs
YES! I don't understand how people can be this negligent and egotistical! The only times it's appropriate to be annoyed when somebody tells you that is if you're not causing anybody harm in the first place and have a 0% chance to do so in the future. (Like when my mom told me I was gonna kill somebody if I didn't wash my dishes after I finished eating, as if she doesn't keep dirty dishes around for weeks before washing them.)
Well at least he made sure it would only happen once.
The worst part is that Rush ironically died from his own negligence, never having seen how wrong he was. I wonder what he would say had he not been on that sub....
Like most rich folk, he won't think for a second it was his fault, and also like most rich people, he likely wouldn't get in any trouble.
Would probably blame the "industry" or something
"i don't feel sorry for them, they signed a waiver"
To be honest I wish he wasn't on the sub and didn't die then he can live with the guilt that others died because of his hubris and disregard for safety
Wouldn't feel guilty. @@dericofdorking
Flippant disregard for existing safety standards most certainly would go under the heading "gross negligence".
Personally, I don't think he had flippant disregard for existing safety standards.
I think he had outright disdain for them.
@@gavinmccarty7865is there a difference?
Liability waivers are intended to stop them being sued for things out of their control, not to excuse them for their own failures to ensure safety.
I think it states that their vessel is a project, and if they die, they can not be sued. Also, they understand that if the vessel were to fail, they could receive damages or even death.
@@Miguel323527 Yes but waivers don't cover this sort of thing. Not in the US anyway. You can put whatever the hell you want in a waiver, but if you kill or harm someone due to extreme negligence or incompetence, the waiver does not matter.
@@Miguel323527 You can't just sign your life away on a piece of paper. They were clearly knew the risk that they were putting their passengers in and even lied to them clearly creating mixed perceptions about the safety of the experience they were giving them. And, as a historical site the court could probably argue an unfair waiver.
@@Miguel323527 pretty sure I just watched a 20+ minute video explaining why it's not that simple...
@@Miguel323527If they were selling tickets, it was no longer a test project.
I always found it odd that Stockton thought the warning system was somehow a safety device. It was more of a... incoming, imminent death, alert system. Bizarre.
Warnings are supposed to warn people of danger. Seems pretty safety oriented to me.
@@VineFynn When you have no time to do anything about the alarm going off other than sit there and die as the alarm goes off practically at deaths door, it doesn't serve as anything other than a system to tell you of your immediate death. If they weren't at the bottom of the ocean, stuck on board and able to actually change their fate, then fine, I would call it a safety system.
@@VineFynn A warning system is only useful if you can do something about the warning when it happens. When your warning system is the sound of the structure of your submersible failing in the deep sea, all it's doing is notifying you that you're about to die and there's nothing you can do about it.
More and more I think he was a man with a death wish who wanted an instantaneous, painless death with human sacrifices in his tomb with him. He could have been a rich weirdo with a fetish. I mean... it's probably safe to say he was those things. He probably convinced the English dad to bring his son with because he would be a younger sacrifice. In light of this insane possibility, everything Stockton Rush said and did makes sense. The alert system simply meant Showtime.
@@VineFynn It's kind've like making a warning for rolling over. If your car is starting to roll, it's already too late...
It's worth remembering that the owners of the Titanic followed all the laws and regulations of the day in the building of the ship and the quantity and type of safety equipment. It was also commonly believed at the time that large ocean liners couldn't sink under normal circumstances. The sinking of Titanic led to dramatic changes. But the owners of the ship weren't even negligent, never mind grossly negligent. Even the captain of the ship was technically following standard procedures.
Maritime standards were atrocious back in the day eh?
Didn't they use bad rivets etc, plus didn't have the keys to the Loic locker with binoculars? There were a ton of rules broken with Titanic, iirc.
This is incorrect. The Titanic's construction had many cut corners. There existed two sets of plans; one for shareholders and regulators to look at, and the actual ones the engineers were to use. The main consequences are that the Titanic should not have sunk the way it did as fast as it did, and there should have been more than enough lifeboats for all passengers and crew.
technically titanic itself was tested .. though ocean gate was not . titanic actually exceeded the standard of the day and the bulkheads wouldve kept them afloat in normal head on crashed .. however it is HOW it hit the ice berg that led to its demise... so white star line not claiming responsibility is a little more ok ( not perfectly ok) than ocean gate that didnt adhere to any standards
@@samanthaabel1079 The Titanic was not tested, that was the first and last iceberg it crashed into. It was famously the ship's maiden voyage. Any ship would have sunk hitting that iceberg, but the Titanic's cut corners meant it sank too fast for people to safely evacuate, and they couldn't even do that because there weren't enough lifeboats. The Titan sub however was actually tested, it had already been down to the Titanic wreck a few times; the issue was the shoddy construction and lackadaisical attitude. The materials used for the hull don't do well with extreme pressure, and so the hull was weakened rapidly over its dives until it eventually gave and imploded. Both events have the same root cause of rich people cutting corners, both companies are responsible.
In studying big construction accidents at my former job, I learned that in most cases there's almost always big red flags that led up to them. Over confidence/arrogance, shortcuts taken, over budget, behind schedule, ignored warnings, negligence. Unfortunately it often takes a wake up call catastrophic accident to change things. Good video.
For want of a nail, the horseshoe was lost.
For want of a shoe,
The horse was lost.
For want of a horse, the battle was lost.
Because the battle was lost,
The war was lost.
All for the want of a nail.
Wait til you're in the real world and not just studying about it. You'll find that literally every project in life has these properties. Arrogant leaders, cutting a few corners that really are unnecessary, running over on budget, etc.
It's so reductive and even _childish_ to suggest that all of these are proof of negligence. Everything you listed is a false positive in 99%+ of cases. In fact, being over budget is often DUE TO following the extra regulations.
@@far2ez I worked as a welder in the field (real world) for 30 years
In medicine we say "the patient cannot consent to malpractice." All the legit experts who knew what Rush was doing said he was bonkers and told him so. He's on record scorning their opinions. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the plaintiffs have a legitimate beef.
Patient cannot consent to malpractice....how so..could you explain what that means?
@@marcthomas4488 think they might mean that just because you sign a waiver saying the hospital isn’t at fault for problems that occur doesn’t mean they can perform malpractice and still not be at fault given the waiver. Legal Eagle talks about this at 2:55, regarding Gross Negligence
@@marcthomas4488 Im not a doctor in any way but no surgery is without risk. Say with open heart surgery, it's a very complicated and you could die. You won't be able to sue over that (without proof of malpractice) but say they doctor came in drunk and decided to do the surgery and you die that is malpractice and you can and should sue over that. A doctor that does EVERYTHING by the book so to speak is pretty safe from legal ramifications. Doctors have really high insurance they have to pay to maintain their practice.
Yeah it's pretty hard to get around the fact that dozens of experts told him directly that this was an incredibly bad idea at best and totally unsafe at worst and he publicly rebuked them and found loopholes in order to do it anyway.
They waiver says it's dangerous and expirmental, etc etc, but I very much doubt any of the passengers knew the full scope of just how dangerous it was or that OceanGate volunteered any of that information they were told by other experts.
Like reading a waiver saying something is dangerous is one thing. Hearing that pretty much every expert in the industry thinks it's insane is a whole different ballgame.
@@AD-df5tm the simple fact that the viewport alone didn't even come close to have the depth rating required for the depth they were diving alone was a clear sign of gross negligence in my opinion. The hull structure was iffy, and problematic but not as clearly unsuitable since it was not tested or certified. I'm sure that the waiver didn't reveal that at best the sub was suitable for only 1/3rd of the depth they were going.
I tried to explain to my dad that just because you signed a release doesn't guarantee it's enforceable. Sometimes companies have you sign a release that's unenforceable just so you don't try.
*edit*
10k+ likes, we did it mom, law school finally paid off!
Good to know.
Pretty sure the only guarantee in contract law is that you can take each other to court...
A lot of non-compete agreements fall into this category, for the record.
I n my field, people move from job to job all the time even though we have to sign NDAs and non-compete. It’s a joke.
@@troubledsole9104yeah. I think people forget that a legal waiver or contract still needs to be reasonable to be enforced
There's something so hilariously 'youtube' about ending the video off with "This man who perished brutally should have brushed up on his skills with TODAY'S SPONSOR!"
It is still quite notable that the sub Titan, practically declared unsinkable, was destroyed while diving to observe the Titanic, a ship literally declared unsinkable
😂
I don't think we should send boats and subs declared unsinkable to canada. They always manage to break
And now there are more souls at the bottom of the ocean with the Titanic
It's like poetry, it rhymes.
The more I learn about this sub disaster and how preventable it was the more I find myself asking "HOW WERE THEY ALLOWED TO DO THIS TO BEGIN WITH?!"
One word answer: money.
Because liberty. I still believe people should be allowed to dive in toy subs when they sign the waiver.
why shouldn't people be allowed to be stupid?
@@cx2900 Because people want regulations that keep them safe. It takes away their urgency to be more careful.
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 The problem which I have with this line of argument- that people should just be allowed to sign away their lives in waivers- is that people don't always have a sense of all the salient facts, and thus can't always make informed decisions. If I decide to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, drive in my car, or have unprotected sex, I am clearly assuming a known level of risk, and should be allowed to do so. But the people who got in this submarine weren't necessarily aware that it was a total death trap, and nobody had died in it before. The CEO likely intentionally assured them it would be safe, and the fact that he went down with them was clearly supposed to inspire confidence. Can I really blame a 19 year old boy for not sussing out that all of the authoritative-sounding adults around him were misrepresenting the situation? Is that really stupidity so heinous that his family should have zero recourse as a result?
Suppose there's a new amusement park in town. Only a few people have used their rides before, and before you go in you're made to sign a waiver saying that your family can't sue if you get hurt/die. You ask why you're being made to sign this, and they tell you that it's not a big deal- certainly not because the rides a especially unsafe- it's just standard industry paperwork. But later, it turns out that their waterslide was only reinforced with rotting wood, to save money. The whole structure collapses, killing you and 124 other people instantly. Should you family have zero legal recourse, because you knowingly went on a ride which you expected to be safe, but actually wasn't? Perhaps there were red flags and warning signs you should have seen, but would it really be tyranny to force the corporation that killed over 100 people through massive negligence to take some responsibility?
It's frankly situations like this which reveal why anarcho capitalism is a meme ideology.
"They're not clients, they're experts! And the money was a donation, you guys!" Is *the* scummiest thing I've heard in a while.
AMEN!
This is very scummy operation thankfully it is no more.
I mean Rush died too, the fact that he was willing to trust his own life to his sub tells you that he really did believe it was safe and that he wasn't just bullshitting everyone (on purpose, at least).
So ya, no one has a right to sue, the man died.
@@theNimboo He should not have guaranteed the safety of something he didnt test. The only reason to bring people along without testing it himself first was greed
@@theNimboo That is NOT at all how that works. Whether or not the CEO had a death wish or was able to move past the fear of death does NOT absolve him or his estate from being negligible and callous towards the passengers that were on that doomed voyage.
Remember those infomercials for storage bags that had a special nozzle so you could suck the extra air out with your vacuum? That's what happened to Linnea Mills. She entered the water with her suit deflated and, because of the damaged equipment, she was unable to add any air. As she submerged, the suit constricted around her, making movement and breathing impossible. The load of weights she was carrying caused her to sink too rapidly for her dive buddy (also a student) to aid her. As you get deeper, it takes more and more air to offset your negative buoyancy, so it becomes a runaway train situation. Not only was she incorrectly weighted, but the weights had been tucked into pockets on her suit, preventing the other student driver from simply unbuckling a weight belt to lighten her enough for the him to lift her. The diving company latered tried to deflect blame onto her traumatized buddy for the incident.
18:49 The "obscenely safe" phrasing is very telling. Not just because it reveals his attitude about safety, but also because it outs him as one of those weird egotistical people who use awkward grandiose phrasing like "obscenely safe".
Like he thinks safety is obscene?
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 under emergency authorization, not regulatory approval with its phase 3 clinical trials cut short, just to name a few.
@@damp2269 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.
It’s always a bad sign when everyone with a passing knowledge of engineering starts throwing every red flag they can find to anyone who will listen and whistle blowers start getting fired. Also “cost cutting” and 2 miles under the ocean should never be in the same sentence.
I want the company to get sued into oblivion, however, did not one of the passengers do any research, not even the Titanic expert? One google search would have revealed an alarming amount of information that should have made any rational person rethink. It seems like a version of just picking a plastic surgeon off the internet because they have a good website. The company should be destroyed, etc. but at the same time, the passengers were made aware of every single potentially gruesome outcome, they made an informed choice.
On the less fancy side anyone should have been smart enough to say nah when they saw the cheap Logitech controller they were using. Like they couldn't even spring for the $40 name brand controller? The fact that it was controlled by a Playstation controller in general should have been a red flag.
@@zakkmylde1712even worse is that it was wireless, not even a wire to be safe.
@zakkmylde1712 I've seen professionals who say many things were done wrong but the controller is a bit of a red herring. The US navy and military also use repurposed game controllers for things. The internal controls are not experiencing the same wear and tear as the body.
But also... spend $10 more.
The relative amount of money the passengers spent on this trip is the equivalent of me spending $100...... to go to the bottom of the ocean.... hubris.
I'm not a lawyer, a law student or graduate. I'm not even in the US. But this shed a light on the situation that I didn't know I needed. What a legal nightmare. I feel bad for the people that will have to battle this mess in court.
I don't. They're all billionaires.
No one is going to sue.
@@sarahbrown5073 i think they will however i feel the investors will first as they lost money .. in end itll come down to investor dollars
They knew (well enough) what they signed up for and the family is super rich. Hard to feel sympathy for them.
@@DoctorJammerI feel bad for the kid who went because his dad wanted him too
Ah the lessons of being absolutely blinded by ego, something we reward in our society.
Richly... Under loan terms.
🤔and protections?
Their "warning system" is the oceanic equivalent of using a paper plate attached to the ceiling with an M&M glued to it as a fire alarm.
Oh gosh, thank you for this visual! 😂
It would be more of a fire alert than an alarm. But your point is made.
I’ve always strongly opposed and extremely outspoken on the ridiculous idea of using an M&M as the main receiver on a smoke detector…. You see the M&M has… structural flaws… in which will only detect a extreme fire within milliseconds before unsuspecting sleeping individuals are turned into bbq… that is only if they haven’t already succumbed to co2 poisoning/asphyxiation…. And this all due to the thick candy shell that coats the delicate chocolate of the M&M…. Ok I’m sorry internet… this is getting ridiculous… everyone knows Hershey’s is the best chocolate to use in order to detect fires…. You see uncontested chocolate begins to melt at 86 degrees, where as fire burns at its minimum temperature of about 400 degrees… sugar… even formed in a hard shell… melts at around 320 degrees… so here you have a lapse of time to detect the fire 370% faster than sugar coated chocolate as opposed to all natural milk chocolate…. It’s science… it’s been tested…
@@lachevious Thank Shawn Spencer from Psych XD
@@Choptron27 This is true. But most choose the M&M for its aesthetic appeal during non-emergency times. For them, the double benefit of a pleasing visual and functional utility can't be beat. For better or worse
My main problem with this whole debacle is that Stockton was propping up the vessel as indestructible and super safe. Regardless of what the waivers said, the passengers were led to believe by the company that it was a very safe vessel when it was not. It was Stockton's lying and ego that got them on the vessel just as it was his ego and lack of concern for safety that got them killed in it.
With their level of wealth and ressources, we can expect that the passengers should have been able and sane to get independent expert opinions. That they didn't is negligence on their part and should be considered.
@@shizachan8421Exactly.
@shizachan8421 I think that is an opinion based on bias towards wealthy people. A common/normal person wouldn't normally go that above and beyond for similar things.
If I was to get on an airplane built by some company I had never heard of before, I'm not going to hire independent assessors to check it out before my flight if the company selling me the tickets tells me it meets or exceeds industry standards, especially when the pilot and one other passenger have done the trip before.
How many services do you look into prior to using them? Do you check the background of every restaurant, for example?
Ultimately OceanGate was almost farcical negligent - to the point where ordinary people would not assume he was misleading them. Most of this stuff only came up after the ship sank, after all.
Just because someone is wealthy doesn't ensure they will all launch independent investigations that will catch that the guy was actively avoiding every regulation he could.
They gave up $250k, which to any normal person is a crazy amount of money so you would think twice, to get on this death trap and didn't get a second opinion. They were so rich, they didn't think. Their downfall WAS money.
Normally, when oligarchs use their power to deregulate and skim safety measures, it's the poor that suffer.
How sweet it was to see it happen to them for a change.
Yes after its owner -BILL GATES
He had nothing to do with OceanGate.
@@missmarya747 Bot
This is why one day the poor people of the world will unite, and then the oligarchs will tremble in fear before the communist revolution of the proletarians that have nothing to lose but their chains.
As a diver, I find fly-by-night scuba companies that don't take into consideration an absolutely terrifying and very real possibility whenever you go diving outside your usual club.
The fact that the passengers are referred to as "mission specialists" is clearly an intentional move to limit liability. Rush (or at least his legal team) was aware of the laws they were breaking, and were actively attempting to "cover all the bases".
This is manslaughter disguised as gross negligence.
great comment
ah yes, a 19 year old mission specialist
@@lucifugerofocale5847 Weak argument considering that he was an adult and he finished highschool...
@@Bialy_1 ah yes, because you gain all insight and understanding and maturity when you turn 18
Yep, an article mentioned this. Getting crew killed is not as big a problem as getting a passenger killed, so they were called 'mission specialists' and they never bought 'tickets', to create the fiction that they were crew rather than passengers. If that asshole Rush had put half the effort for this into actually building a sub that would be known to work, none of this shit would have happened.
"who could have possibly foreseen something going wrong with the Titan sub? Well, the lawyers"
As an engineering student, trust me, the engineers saw it too. They didn't just not get it certified for fun, they knew no agency on the planet would certify it.
any blind person would have seen that it was not safe. i in the first case saw it wasn't safe. I'm just a regular ol joe
I think the main reason was cost saving. However doing something unconventional for cost saving measures isn't always bad. But unconventional is often hard to certify.
There is a lot of speculation and illwill against the game controller. However this in itself isn't an issue, btw nuclear submarines use of the shelf game controllers for some tasks too.
You have to do a fault analysis and evaluate the risks and consequences of a failure. As this thing was designed, everything about controls and underwater communication could have failed, it was designed to automatically drop the weights and surface after a certain time. They had enough supplies and oxygen for quite a while, so this all was fine.
The issue is the hull which of course had a very experimental and flawed design.
@altaccount4697 Could the Apollo 13 module that failed been "certify"-able? Would NASA got their crew back alive if they had to time to 'certify' all the things they had to use "off-label" to get the job done?
Gamers saw that logitech controller and knew immediately.
The golden standard for a submarine is a wired xbox controller, and them buying a cheaper, wireless one to save $20 would tip me off.
@@lal12 The amount of shit the game controller gets from the public, when with the information the public has, it seems to have had nothing to do with the catostrothic hull failure. Just because people dont know how common "gaming" controllers are in heavy machinery. is insane
Saying Rush should have brushed up on math and science and going into the ad read is one of the hottest burns I’ve ever heard on a channel, bravo, very apt
Indeed, that segue was Brilliant.
My personal take: The passengers could have done far better things with their money than getting into a shoddily constructed and uncertified Pringles can, *and* OceanGate should be sued into the Stone Age for both lying to customers and firing the guy who warned them that this wasn't going to end well. I hope he finds a better job.
Pringles Can = perfect
You, sir, are getting a like. You made my day
The key phrase is their money. Doesn't really matter if you don't approve of what they're spending their own money on. Do I think it's stupid? Sure. Just like you couldn't pay me to climb up a huge mountain, much less get me to actually pay for it. If that's what millionaires or billionaires want to spend their money on, it's their business. In this case they played a dangerous game and paid the price.
@@morrigan908 except it was taxpayer money that went to the rescue. I would agree with you if it wasn't the public trying to find the pringle can
@@C-Rocks Eh, I'll agree that it was taxpayer money, but taxpayer money always pays for any kind of disaster, accident, or idiot-caused-accident related response. Hurricane relief? Government funded. Plane crash? Government funded. Ferry capsized because it's carrying 3x its rated load? Government funded. Tin can sub implode while going to the Titanic? Government funded.
The waivers said it was experimental, but it wasn’t actually experimental. It was already PROVEN by engineers in the industry to NOT WORK. The reason others didn’t use carbon fiber and a cylindrical design wasn’t because they hadn’t thought of it or hadn’t tried it. They already knew metal and a spherical design were safer. So it’s not an experiment at that point, it’s just irresponsible. That’s a huge difference.
Failed experiment lmao
@@helgahaa Man's law vs law of physics. Who will win?
"The value of failure in science."
I think the CEO/builder was figuratively drunk on, "There is no such thing as a failed experiment."
carbon fiber is actually a viable option for a pressure hull when used correctly. a correct use would be a submarine that goes as deep as an attack or missile sub as shown by extensive research done by multiple navies. however even if it is cheaper in cost it does break more quickly than titanium and is prone to cracking. that is why it isn't used because it requires more precision and maintenance. also that stern area on titan was a cowling not the actual hull she was infect a cylinder similar looking to a naval submarine.
the carbon fiber used by Rush was surplus from Boeing that was past it's shelf-life so it was deemed unsafe by the manufacturer to be used.
The more I hear about this shoddy operation the more I think that a catastrophic failure was inevitable. I don't think there's anything anyone could have told him that would have forced him to change his ways.
Engineers: "This machine is unsafe..."
Stockton Rush: "How dare you insult me personally!"
This is how most of Spider-Man’s enemies got started.
Engineers: airplanes are safe
You: thank God
Me: There have been 7 plane crashes, 38 lives lost in the US alone since the submersible crash. Why don't you cry about that?
@@macbook802depending on how those numbers were found, that does actually sound incredibly safe. I feel like ive seen about that many accidents on my local highway in the past month alone.
@@macbook802yeah but how many flights have there been since. Also how many of those accidents have been due to pilot error rather than mechanical falure.
@@macbook802with 4000 lives in the US lost a month on roads. What is your point?
There’s a cartoon I remember after the Peanut Corporation of America scandal. It showed a flopped over Uncle Sam with x’s for eyes holding a sandwich before two jars, one labeled “industry can regulate itself” and “jelly.”
Excellent video. What a shame that no one listened to those who knew. Those who questioned things were threatened with a lawsuit. Whistle Blower Act should have protected them.
OceanGate is quite literally the textbook example of what gross negligence stands for. If they cant sue the living shit out of them, the system has failed. :)
no t isn't, it's definitely not in any textbooks yet.
@@Ass_of_Amalek Some people will do anything, including not making sense, to not use the word "very".
I'd argue that you're wrong.
This case is clear-cut criminal negligence. They had several experts that straight up took getting fired over green-lighting that tin can.
Sorry but they signed a waiver saying it was a shoddy vessel and still in experimental stages. They're screwed.
@@zachryder3150: is this the contrarian hour? OP is not wrong.
Now, I try to not be a hateful person... but I genuinely hope these people are sued into the dirt. This kind of malicious stupidity must be punished.
Well the CEO sure got punished, at the very least.
@@MasterScrub Barely tbh since it happened faster than the human reaction speed.
@@MasterScrub Guess we can thank the orcas for telling us where they were.
The ceo, the one in charge, was the pilot. He also insisted on the design and sued the whistleblower for sharing company secrets when said whistleblower went out and stated this was a bad idea. I have no problems with his company being butchered for his sins, salting the earth of his legacy so no recovery can occur, but this is one of the ever so rare thankful incidents of the regulation dodging moneybags being the first in line to find out why the regulation existed.
@@Art3m1s_98allegedly they new up to a minute before implosion that everything was going bad quick.
atleast one of the passengers was pressured into it, being the young man who was reportedly terrified of the trip, but went along with it for his dad for father's day
That is so sad poor kid
This is so clearly gross negligence it's just insane. I don't see how a judge could possibly look at this and not agree that this is absolutely lawsuit worthy.
You CAN’T have people sign these waivers on risk of death while telling them it’s “safer than crossing the street.” >.
Well, thanks to the infrastructure in the US, it's very unsafe to cross the street there, so yeah lots of things *are* "safer than crossing the street."
@@LeafHuntressdont be a well actually
@@LostStarzOfTheSky WTF is wrong with whatever you claim i'm doing & BE EFFING specific!
well if you aren’t looking both ways when crossing the street and you’re a 4 year old, 100% im on their side with this statement.
Yeah if you payed attention. The riders were made aware of the risks. They were warned by others and chose to go anyway.
It says a lot about Rush's character that when confronted with genuine worry by experts, his response was to be personally offended. If he had survived this dive, I 100% believe he would keep going until this happened anyway, no matter who it killed.
It really surprised me that he got personally offended. When I’m teaching safety, I always empathize listening to each other and thanking colleagues who brings up a potential safety issue. Because it’s better to take a step back and discuss the matter. My safety motto is “your fingers look great where they are”.
@maxgarcia1454 indeed. It's excessive egoism and the toxic state of mind that it engenders.
Be egoistic if you want, but be careful about it.
When i have heard people who know him saying" he was a dreamer" I thought "Ah well, I didn't know dreamer was synonymous of delusional
Exactly. This was an eventuality, not a freak accident.
the type of arrogance he displayed is very reminiscent of what a woman would do. will never admit they are wrong till the grave
It's astounding that the submersible didn't fail sooner. It's troubling that the owner was able to operate so recklessly and with great conceit. It's fine to be a maverick and experiment with new ideas if you're the ceo of a telecom business. Using unproven, inadequately tested technology when people's lives are at stake is unconscionable.
Being from a family full of lawyers and a history of attorney generals, I love your videos providing insight for people who would not otherwise know this stuff.
"5 people were willing to," except for the kid whose dad pressured him into going, despite the fact that he told everyone else he was terrified and didn't want to, but didn't want to disappoint his dad.
tragic, but children don't know what they need, this massive outlier of an event is not the lightening rod you think it is for " parents shouldn't push kids outside their comfort zone"
@@InvestmentBankrhe was 19, an adult who should’ve been able to say no if he wanted to. even if he was a child, if he was terrified and didn’t want to go on a vacation (not something important), he shouldn’t have been forced.
@@InvestmentBankrSaying kids shouldn't have a say in what happens to them is pretty cringe, bro
kid?
@@nise528119 year old whose billionaire dad got him to get in the submersible with him. I think it was to celebrate father's day
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.
@@egoalter1276 no he didn't. only mission specialists were allowed. if a specialist doesn't understand risks who does?
@@KarldorisLambleyI hope you’re being sarcastic. They were tourists who were named mission specialists and their fee was called a donation. This was all done with the express purpose of avoiding the laws regulating passenger safety. As Devin explains in the video.
@@KarldorisLambley You can call a robbery a "intense negotiation" all you want, it doesnt change the facts. They were passengers, they werent there to perform any scientific studies or operate the vessel.
*malice
It's so sad this happened, especially for the other people onboard. He could have put safety first, received certification, and could have actually made a great submarine if he would have listened to the warnings of professionals and focused on making the submarine safe.
"'There is absolutely no problem with the island.'
Gennaro said, 'Then there should be absolutely no problem with an inspection.'
'And there isn't,' Hammond said. 'But it slows things down. Everything has to stop for the official visit...'"
--Dialog between John Hammond and Donald Gennaro, "Jurassic Park" (1990 book), Michael Crichton
I'm not surprised they wouldn't want an inspection. What I'm surprised about is that they make it sound like there is a freaking official *dinosaur island* inspector!
The only reason i am sad that the CEO literally when down with his ship, is that he is not alive to be held accountable for this crime. Because in my eyes this was an absolute crime. Just hearing interviews of him talking how he cut corners.
Heck, he himself seemed to brag about it in some videos!
He died for his arrogance/delusion. Not much of a higher price to pay. If there is an afterlife(that's for the you to decide whether to believe or not) then he will spend every moment for the rest of eternity knowing that his death was his own fault and entirely avoidable
@matthewmiller6068 He's died for his arrogance the ones yall need to be going after are the ones who were sitting comfortably sitting in their office or home when those people died
@@gokublack8342bruh this isn't a goverment coup those people just were doing their jobs they were hired for lol. The main guy is already dead he got all the punishment needed
@@theshrikeer I doubt very seriously the board and other executives didn't know about any of this
Amazed that they put more effort into the contract being watertight than the sub
Well said.
Most underrated comment *ever!* 📈🤣👍
🤣🤣🤣
Well played sir!!!
Of course, in the face of such a tragic incident, it's unsettling to see how Ocean Gate's contract seems to hold more water than their submarine did. As the legal team navigates these rough waters, they've managed to stay afloat, buoyed by their meticulously drafted agreements. You could say their legal strategy was designed to weather any storm, a contract as unshakeable as the ocean floor and as unsinkable as the sturdiest of ships.
In fact, they've gone to great depths to make sure their liability doesn't spring a leak, as solid as a seawall, with no room for loopholes to make waves. And even now, up the creek without a paddle as they might seem, their legal defense remains shipshape. Their contract, acting like a steadfast anchor, might be all that's keeping them from getting swamped by a tsunami of lawsuits.
The contract, seemingly dry as a bone, is designed to keep the company from drowning under legal scrutiny, acting as a lifeboat in troubled waters. Despite their submarine succumbing to the pressure, their legal defenses, anchored by this contract, stand tall like a lighthouse, holding back the tide of potential lawsuits. Even as they're submerged in this sea of controversy, they're determined to go with the flow, hoping their contract will help them float on the surface.
But while they might be able to weather the legal storm, it's clear that the real-life tragedy has left an indelible mark, a reminder of the real stakes when venturing into the ocean's depths. In the end, it's a sobering lesson about the risks of diving too deep, too fast, and relying on a contract to serve as a life raft in a sea of potential legal trouble.
The experience of being crunched in that small capsule must had been horrifying. Brief but horrifying.
The force of the water would have crushed them to death before they could mentally register anything. Their deaths were too fast to be horrifying.
There are so many scummy moves in those legal decisions by the company. I know that lawyering for companies is scumminess made into a profession, but that's just on a whole different level.
If only the dedication put into finding legal loopholes had been put into building a dive-worthy vessel.
To be fair nautical engineering is out of the scope of most lawyers.
the problem is making such a vessel would have been way more expensive, they were trying to cut costs to make the business more profitable, if the sub was much more expensive then there wouldn't be a market for them to exploit, if they had to develop the sub for years with perhaps many unmanned tests and design revisions that would drive the cost up by an incredible amount, instead they cut corners and skipped testing and development and just started taking people on trips
That would have been expensive
@@doltBmBif the choices are between not making a profit, and dying, there’s no market there either way
innit
Sounds like we need to expand the definition of "gross negligence" to include willful ignorance and incompetence. If multiple professionals are telling you that something is unsafe and not up to code and you're refusing to heed them in any meaningful way, you should absolutely get sued for it. He put people in danger because he was arrogant enough to think he knew better when he didn't.
We can't do that. Some rich person might end up fractionally less rich when their negligence kills someone.
He did know better just refusdd
Was that the CEO who said carbon fiber is stronger than titanium? Lol clearly he never watched UA-cam videos.
@@fynkozari9271 carbon fiber is stronger than titanium in tests its not just as black and white as it seems. In this cade carbon fibre was a horrible idea
@@maindepth8830 You also never watched titanium vs carbon fibre videos?
Willful negligence would slash that liability waver to ribbons. Especially since that whole "this thing needs to be certified" and being shown the door BS.
Stockton Rush is the epitome of “Confidence does not me competence”
Confidence and competence are two different things.
They need getting sued and made an example of so that nobody in future tries to scam money out of the public by such crooked means.
Man tried to evade the law so much that he lost sight of the most important thing. While he may not have lost a lawsuit, he certainly did lose his life.
Imagine having countless experts telling you that a vessel isn't seaworthy because of all of the corners being cut, and getting personally insulted.
Sounds just like Trump, NPD on steroids.
That alone was a massive red flag
"This vessel isn't safe"
"What!? How DARE you!!!"
More evidence to never trust a narcissist
@@a_jerk Oh, he's a classic narcissist for sure
It is insane that companies will try and use NDAs and confidentiality agreements to hide blatantly illegal and dangerous acts.
Welcome to late-stage capitalism, can I interest you in a "illegal for the poor, legal with a laughably cheap fine for the rich"?
Why?
You can’t sign a contract to break the law. It would be void.
@@sdot5389You can sign it; it just wouldn't be enforceable. The point is that by making you sign it they can trick you into thinking you can't do anything about it.
Insane. Yes. Surprised? No. Hubrism isn't above reality or in this case, crushing ocean depths, nevertheless it's real.
The window was only rated for 1,300 meters, the titanic is 4,000 meters down.
I’m no legal expert. But I kinda think “Our vessel is perfectly safe for passengers…Just don’t tell anyone you’re a passenger” is kind of a red flag.
The fact that mother nature tried to warn them by literally striking the sub with lightning beforehand is mind-blowing.
When even God is trying to stop this stupidity.
Not just that dallymd a scuba diver UA-camr was supposed to be going on that sub too but the weather got worse big waves made the operation stop and he just backed out saving his life. Another example of mother nature warning them to not do it.
6:55 it's this guy.
The carbon fiber was cracking on previous dives and they went back down. SMH.
You know this company is screwed since the families of the victims they killed have basically unlimited money combined and a grudge. Hope they get what's coming to them.
even if the company is not screwed legally, i won't be surprised if oceangate ceo suddenly disappears
@@justintay4044considering where oceangate CEO currently is, I don't think anyone can find him anymore
@@justintay4044He did… he was in the sub…
@@justintay4044 idk, being distributed across the ocean floor as fine particulate matter is already pretty thoroughly disappeared
Yeah, no kidding. Can't wait to see what happens next.
Wow! It really all comes together. I had no idea Rush played up the opportunity to “contribute” or whatever to science for participants so much on this trip specifically to evade passenger safety laws. Just wow.
A key question is going to be whether OceanGate is going to be worth suing - if its assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment then unless the claimants can cobble together a personal liability case against the company's directors (not easy under common law) it is unlikely to be a cost-effective claim, especially once legal costs are taken into account.
As a certified diver, I heard about the Linnea Mills scuba diving incident and was absolutely horrified by the ignorance of the dive instructors in handling the defective equipment issues. In my mind, they were guilty of manslaughter. They operated with reckless disregard of human life.
Well manslaughter laws vary by state, and country, you'd have to read the specific statute in the jurisdiction where that took place before you can make such a claim.
@@joshdavis3743 Your point is well taken, but my comment was not a claim as to prosecution of the offense.
Instead it was my reaction to such total incompetence (that is why I said, "in my mind"). My gut feeling would be the same regardless of the letter of the statute, the dive instructors operated with reckless disregard.
I agree horrendously negligent, I do feel it was different to the Oceangate scenario in that she was seeking experts to teach her safely and they through ignorance or stupidity basically killed her, whereas the Oceangate passengers were warned and knew the sub was uncertified experimental etc.
That's PADI for you, a decades long reputation of cutting corners and prioritizing profits.
@@1dash133 Got ya, appreciate your response. Your point is well taken as well.
Calling the industry "obscenely safe" is just incredible.
The ocean *will* murder you first chance it gets.
A sheer lack of regard for the dangers of the ocean at any depth. Commercial fishing boats have more safety certifications than this chunk of CF had. Ever person who has put to sea as a sailor knows it is dangerous, even in this decadent age of technology. The risks are minimized to an extent already, but they all work and train to be safer than that, because technology may, and often does, fail at some point. EVERY submariner knows the risks and that a serious problem is likely to result in death if they are not prepared enough to take advantage of any possible opportunity to save themselves or the ship.
There was NONE of that respect for the risks here. Zero. In fact Rush went out of his way to cast doubts and sage advice aside. It's sickening.
it is "obscenely safe" because it HAS to be.
It is. They're a small number of people who are absolutely aware of the dangers and build their boats using proven materials, then fit them out with multiple redundant systems.
This shit failed because Rush didn't hold to the standards of the rest of the industry.
Actually it's accurate. However, Rush was a wildcard operating outside of thoroughly proven and regulated techniques and safety practices. His reference to the industry safety record was a fallacious appeal to authority meant to mislead about his own practices.
This was a major case a month back maybe? But a video with the details on the case was uploaded 5 days ago with pristine editing. This, to me, is why this channel is so good. Besides making proper lawyer work, they made a perfectly good UA-cam video
If nothing else I hope a case is won in favour of the poor 19 y/o, considering we know that he was more or less forced into it by his father
There's disagreement on that point.
Not according to his mother
Wrong, he was an adult and can take legal actions to not be forced. Yet he still went inside that pringles can
@@LINK-is3oc I see you've never endured an overbearing, emotionally manipulative parent
The fact the dude was so proud that he made a dodgy, unsafe submarine without caring about safety should have been a warning to everyone. No wonder they are being sued.
The fact that anybody in their right mind would have told him hell no, but people went with him anyway is mind blowing!
All the evidence says he cared quite a bit about safety.
His problem wasn't that he was unsafe, it was the fact that he thought he knew better than the experts.
And his statement that you can be too safe, is actually spot on.
To illustrate the point, I'll bet you think it would be stupid to force car manufacturers to only make cars than can go 25MPH max.
But there are literally 6 MILLION accidents in America every year.
And with billions of dollars spent in medical bills, 38,000 people still die every year.
But you think nothing of hoping into your car just to go get a drink.....
You literally partake in the most dangerous activity we do as a society, for literally no good reason.
Did he (Rush) really think it was not safe when he went on it almost two dozen times?
@@chuckberry1240
"The fact that anybody in their right mind would have told him hell no, but people went with him anyway is mind blowing!"
Gotta remember, none of those people were submariners like myself. If you're not an expert, it's a lot easier for somebody to say, "oh just ask person X, Y and Z, they say it's safe".
@@lordgarion514 The statement "you can be too safe" is true but also meaningless without a definition of "too safe". The key question is, what is the appropriate level of safety for a given activity?
This is exactly why we have certification programs, and industry standards. Its to protect people.
Stockton thought he was above that. His hubris was out of control. Tragic case of American exceptionalism.
Certification and regulations are democrat nonsense
Yes, exactly. We're so used to a relatively well-governed society that we forget all of the effort that went into creating it.
In right to repair argument larger corporations just try to use that justification to stop mom and pop shops from competing with them for an excuse to keep their ridiculous prices high.
Similar to how engineers working at a hospital can't just replace a motor on a bed (since the corp won't sell that part to them), instead forcing them to buy an entire new tens of thousands of dollar bed....so there is a negative side to what you're supporting as well.
Safety rules are often written in blood
Poor guy, the pressure really got to him
Who could've predicted that a compony with "gate" at the end of it's name is involved in a scandal.
As a designer this accident is probably one of the most important in a while. Really shows why considering your material use is vital to safety. And also that if you don’t agree you need to put your foot down. Major respect to the guy who got fired for trying to tell them about the risks. He realised this was more important then his job.
Agreed. I also think it's an important reminder that ego and reckless "innovation" are not substitutes for careful science and development. We seem far to willing these days to attribute massive wealth to "genius" and to follow arrogant, ignorant swindlers to failure and ruin because they promise this sort of "innovation."
He also probably saved his butt because if he wasn't on record stating the sub had flaws then he'd probably be getting a lot of blame shoved on him by the CEO. Higher ups love reassigning blame.
@@catswillruletheworld The CEO isn't doing much blame-shifting, in this case. He's been entirely silent on the matter. In fact, the reverse is happening. All the blame seems to be falling squarely on his shoulders. Dead men file no lawsuits, after all.
As I recall, somewhere buried in a paper about their submersible vehicle, they had disregarded naval safety guidelines, because "most accidents were found to be due to human error"
Like! That's because the only issues left were the humans! Because the safety guidelines were so strict! That nobody was allowed to build bad boats!! Ohhhh my god
@@ferociousfeind8538 It's an unfortunately common cycle, mostly because people are either ignorant of, or fatally misunderstand, history. And also statistics. But mostly history. I don't think there's ever been a single case of "these safety regulations are superfluous! Just look at how few deaths to the things they protect against there are!" that has ever worked out well for those involved. The severity of the lesson does, but it inevitably results in people realizing the wisdom found in the age old saying amongst engineers: "safety regulations are written in blood".
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
did they do 'something' wrong?
I wouldnt even want my name to be associated with OceanGate
I wouldve left if I were the employee.
Guess he simply cant let OceanGate be reckless
Some of the issue here too though is just how often you waive the danger of death. It's done so often it loses any meaning of warning. I have to sign a waiver that says I could die just to play paintball, even though the chances are insanely low. Most people waiving death don't truly believe there's any real chance of dying because of how often they're asked to for comparatively mundane activities.
Probably goes double for the guy who's already been 11 kilometers beneath the surface of the ocean (I.E. dived into Challenger Deep), circumnavigated the globe from pole-to-pole, visited the depths of Antarctica multiple times, and, to top it off, engaged in space tourism. I doubt Hamish Harding would have been able to count the number of waivers like that he'd signed.
That's a really good point!
1:03 While reading the highlighted blue text I accidentally skipped a line and read "This vessel will be subject to extreme death"
Their actions surrounding the submersible, ie. Firing engineers and executives over safety concerns, lying to passengers about the safety of the submersible, having an 86% fail rate during testing, and still moving on with dives like nothing, wholly demonstrates that they knew their submersible was immensely dangerous and they did not care.
Agreed. A competent engineer would have evaluated first principles using autonomous vehicles. That they cobbled all of those home-spun ideas into a prototype and proceeded to test the full-scale prototype with paying passengers is wildly amateurish. The scale of the stupidity of this malpractice is massive. Rush was a huge dummy.
I had a hard time mustering a lot of sympathy for the victims beyond the bare minimum "oh, well, that sucks" reaction as it was, but then I started seeing all the videos and articles detailing Stockton Rush's absolutely insane levels of negligence and then hearing him be proud of it killed any ounce of sympathy I had for Rush himself. Sucks that he took four other down with him (including someone that didn't even want to go at first), but honestly? at least he's not here anymore to continue these expeditions and putting people at risk because he thinks he's above the laws of physics.
@@mexa_t6534 But in this case the passengers were extremely wealthy people who all could have checked into things before they signed up. Yet they either didn't or ignored the results. So I still have no additional sympathy for them. These weren't ordinary saps taken in by a negligent company. Instead we have a bunch of arrogant people who threw caution to the winds. I don't feel their families should get to profit off that.
@@loganmedia1142 I partially agree but they were definitely grossly lied to. There is certainly a reasonable expectation of the company to be following regulations and safety. It's not unreasonable to think the passengers believed Stockton Rush and his sparkly marketing deceit. This is 100% negligent homicide.
@@Kurama_02 Ye. Having enough money to hire experts to evaluate things for you doesn't make you omniscient. They made the very human mistake of trusting a good liar who was full of crap.
Watching old interviews of Rush is devastating. It's so clear in hindsight that he was an arrogant thrill-seeker and didn't care about safety. It's horrific to realize that one man's ego got 4 others killed.
They were billionaires, they could have investigate about the risk, they could have simply refuse, they were billionaires, they got what they deserved
An they own egos
@@hasturthekinginyellow5003i wouldnt necessarily agree. Stockton Rush was a man who was a large dreamer and wanted to push bounds. What he lacked was the same thing every failed inventor, including Tesla, lacked. Personal Moderation. I wouldnt classify HIM as a thrill seeker as his life story indicates a real interest in oushing the bounds of science. Stockton Rush was nowhere near as bad as many billionaires and in the end, the world needs more people with that same dreamer mindset, but the personal moderation to go along with it.
Stockton Rush was not an amateur. He had built 2 subs previously and had built and flown airplanes. He had the credentials and while hindsight says obviously it was stupid, he had a personal passion that radiated out and enthralled those around him. Even the interviewer said that when asked why he went on the sub.
He still got four people killed with his arrogance. Including a teenager who was just there because he wanted to make his Dad happy, and a man who dedicated his life to bring to light the stories of Titanic passengers who weren't in the first class. So only 2 people.
Assuming that billionaires just deseerve death. I disagree. I believe they deserve to have their money taken and used to make society better and to be charged for their crimes.
@@jaycrownshaw3902 Built 2 subs but can't do the basic material science on how carbon fiber sucks in compression huh? Quite an expert I suppose.
man, there is such a gulf of difference between 'it's been fine for X trips and suddenly catastrophic failure' and 'it has constant and continual problems that i ignore and eventually catastrophic failure'
The only way someone could ever even think about joining on a voyage of this vessel is if the CEO of OceanGate was also among the passengers. Which is appearently what happened.
The fact that he wanted the accounting director to pilot the submersible, after firing the expert, and suing him for reporting safety concerns will prove disastrous for them in court... .
I certainly hope so.
@@eritain it will... not to mention the 15$ an hr teenager "engineers" and intern college students...
@@petjewelry9372 Please that is actual normal as shit saddly. I am in college they luckily to get 15 an hour tons of name-brand corps won't even pay you just put you in a seedy motel or something and feed you shit is basically slave labor for college credits. And this very much includes research groups that thrive off unpaid and underpaid interns working for college credits. I mean the amount of vultures I see on campus trying to find dumb kids to work for dirt cheap or free is insane. Like Disney is one the worst they got like little shitty cheap motels set up for interns pay nothing most the time, but they can put it on their resume is what they tell them all, then find out people don't actually get that impressed about it when they find out it was unpaid internship lol
@@Zalzany he needed real and seasoned experts working on a submersible, not teenagers and College students... he probably pick them because they are easier to manipulate, unlike lockridge, a seasoned expert who put it in writing when he saw he was ignored... and what did Rush do? Threaten to get him deported and sue him....