ASSOCIATED PRESS
A modern day pure salvage case deserves your attention. Many of the elements of a salvage yet to be argued as this case comes to a conclusion. The judge has already ruled that this was a salvage, not a tow. What was the value of the boat both before and after the salvage? What did the captain and crew request from the tug, and what did they do immediately after the collision? What skill and efforts did the tug boat use to assist the ferry? The captain of the ferry will offer some testimony this month and might shed some light on theses questions.
Captain in 2003 S.I. Ferry Crash Is Called to Testify – NYTimes.com.
I guess I have to write a letter to the editor of the NYT and correct this statement:
Citing an ancient maritime law that sailors who assist boats in distress should be rewarded, the tugboat’s owner, the Henry Marine service, and its mate and deckhands at the time of the 2003 crash are seeking a payment based on the ferry’s value.
ALL of our laws are based on ancient laws. Can you say Magna Carta? Somehow, qualifying the salvage law as ancient implies that it is out dated, useless in our modern society. Why don’t they say “Citing an international treaty from 1989 knows as SALCON89, the sailors should be rewarded….” ?
I think that our industry must attack this ridiculous stigma of ancient outdated law that is constantly foisted upon the concept of salvage. Does the American Salvage Association write letters correcting this stuff? How about CPORT?
Salvage laws are not old and outdated, the concepts are still sound public policy and are regularly re-affirmed in the highest courts of the land.
