Here is a brief article that I  wrote concerning the TITANIC and some of the legal consequences that arose out of her disaster. Legal Conequences of R.M.S. TITANIC Also - Click of this picture to see photos of RMS Titanic on the sea bottom Click HERE to see photos of the Morro Castle disaster (also described below) LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF TITANIC By Jeffrey A. Weiss The TITANIC, a British Steamship, sailed from Southampton, England on her maiden voyage from New York. On April 14, 1912, she collided with an iceberg on the high seas about 95 miles south of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. The much heralded ?unsinkable? vessel, the pride of the White Star Line, sank the next morning, with the loss of many lives, a total loss of the vessel, her cargo, personal effects, mail, and everything connected with the ship except certain lifeboats. Some 1500 passengers   were lost that night. Tens of millions have recently enjoyed the Academy Award winning film TITANIC. Much has been said about the cause of the loss. Necessary attention has been paid to the human tragedy. The film has created a TITANIC fever across the nation. Marine casualties often  change the law. Just think of the EXXON VALDEZ. No doubt, a catastrophe the magnitude of TITANIC had its legal consequences as well. This article will address some of the issues.    Personal Injuries, Death and Owner's Right to Limitation of Liability The sinking of the TITANIC caused many personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits to be filed in the courts of the United States and the United Kingdom. The victims were from many countries. It is estimated that the death claims alone that were filed in the United States amounted to some 22 million dollars, a staggering sum in any day. The  TITANIC was actually owned by Oceanic Steam Navigation Company (the registered shipowning  company within the White Star Line group). That company filed a petition in the United States District Court for an order limiting its liability in accordance with the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. The owners alleged that the tragic loss was occasioned and incurred without the privity or knowledge of the vessel?s  owners. Thus, TITANIC?s owners argued that even if they were culpable for the tragic losses, their overall liability should be limited by law. The Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 provides several benefits for the petitioning shipowner. First, it acts as a concursus of all claims arising out of the disaster. Thus, when the petitioning shipowner has complied with the law?s requirements, the federal court in which the petition was filed will enjoin the further prosecution of lawsuits against the shipowner arising out of the incident in any other state or federal court. The net effect is that all persons having claims in connection with the casualty must pursue their rights in the court in which the limitation proceedings were filed, or risk a default.  This gives the shipowner  the convenience of defending all  of the claims  that were filed in the United States in one court. Second, and more important for purposes of our look at the TITANIC, is that the law allows a shipowner to limit its liability arising out of a marine casualty to the value of the vessel and her pending freight.  In the early 19th century, before the corporation became the standard form of  business organization, and before P and I insurance cover became widely available, many European nations provided for the right of a shipowner to limit its liability in the case of a maritime disaster.  The U.S., in order to make its vessels more competitive, created its own limitation regime in 1851. The purpose of the law was to encourage investment in the shipping business. The usefulness and vitality of the law is highly questionable. However, the original statute remains in effect today (albeit in an amended form). The vessel's value at the end of the voyage is the fair market value of the vessel, or what is left of her, when the voyage ends, including any earned or pending freight and any claims the owner may have against any third party for loss or damage to the vessel arising out of the voyage. This amount can be zero. Furthermore, the proceeds of any hull insurance, received by the shipowner, are not submitted as part of the limitation fund. This limitation fund becomes available for distribution to victims should the vessel?s owners be held liable for the losses arising out of the casualty. The law will obviously benefit the shipowner when the amount of claims arising out of a casualty exceeds the size of the limitation fund. That was exactly the situation in the matter of TITANIC. Her post casualty valuation was around $95,000, that is, the value of her surviving lifeboats and related equipment. The fund was far less than the outstanding claims. One of the passengers, a British citizen,  objected to Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.?s filing of the petition for limitation of liability under the laws of the United States. His lawyers argued that the acts by reason of which the claims were made (the collision) took place on  a British registered vessel on the high seas. He posited the application of British law. After all, an American ship on the high seas is governed by the federal laws of the United States, whether the matter is criminal, civil, and all other matters to which federal authority runs. Why should a U.S. court apply American maritime law and in particular the U.S. Limitation of Liability Act, when the only real connection with the United States is the fact that many of TITANIC?s passengers (or their families) elected to file suit here? It is noteworthy that the maritime law of the United Kingdom (to which the vessel belonged) also made provisions for limitation of a shipowner?s liability. However, at that time, limitation was available under British law  upon terms and conditions quite different from that prescribed by the U.S. law. Under the laws of the United Kingdom, the   limitation fund was based upon the gross tonnage of the vessel. TITANIC?s owners would have had to establish a minimum fund equal to fifteen pounds sterling for each gross ton of the vessel (TITANIC was 46,000 gross tons), an amount equal to around 3.75 million dollars (while still less than the value of all of the claims, an amount far in excess of the $95,000 available under U.S. law). This choice of law issue was litigated in the case Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor. The federal district court ruled that U.S. law should not apply (despite the filing of lawsuits in the courts of the United States). The appellate court agreed that the U.S. Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 was inapplicable. The owners of the TITANIC appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court?s opinion furthers our understanding of how U.S. limitation of liability proceeds. A threshold question that the Court had to resolve was whether the TITANIC?s owners, a foreign company,  could even ask a U.S. court for the right to limit their liability. The Court answered that question in the affirmative opining that the Act was designed to allow limitation of liability for shipowners, whether foreign or domestic. The next question, and the one that the case is legally famous for, involves the choice of the body of law that the U.S. court was to apply.  Once again, TITANIC was a British ship that sank on the high seas. However, many of her passengers were in fact Americans and chose to pursue their legal rights in the courts of the United States. Nevertheless,  it cannot be contested that the  maritime law of the U.K. was well established and that our courts have often been called upon to resolve a dispute that requires the application of a foreign body of law (for example a sales contract in which the parties have agreed to be bound by the laws of some other nation). An American court is perfectly able to apply the laws of a foreign nation if the circumstances warrant. Why should a U.S. court be obligated to apply U.S. maritime law (and in particular the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act) as opposed to British maritime law? This was an important question for all concerned. Application of U.S. law realistically foreclosed a meaningful recovery for those most affected by the casualty. The size of the available fund would have been trivial. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Supreme Court,  reversed the decisions of the lower courts and held that U.S. maritime law applies. He explained that: The question is not whether the owner of the Titanic by this proceeding can require all claimants to come in  and can cut down rights vested under English law, as against, for instance, Englishmen living in England who do not appear. It is only whether those who do see fit (to file a claim in the United States) are limited in their recovery irrespective of the English law.? We see no absurdity in supposing that if the owner of Titanic were sued in different countries each having a different rule affecting the remedy there, the local rule should be applied in each case. In essence, the Court viewed the matter as procedural in nature and concluded that judicial procedures should be determined by the law of the nation in which each court sits. Other nations can do as they see fit.  The Rule of the TITANIC can be stated as follows.  In virtually all cases involving foreign flag vessels or non U.S. shipowners, limitation proceedings may be commenced in the United States and the limitation proceedings will be governed by U.S. maritime law. This is irrespective of the flag or ownership of the vessel on behalf of which the limitation petition was filed. It has been suggested that application of the above rule and American maritime law makes good sense. After all, a shipowner will not file the petition for limitation in the United States unless suits are pending, or are threatened to be filed, in U.S. courts. However, a U.S. federal court?s granting of a limitation decree does not have extraterritorial effect. It has no impact on suits filed in other nations. The victims can still file their suits, should they so choose,  in the courts of other nations. Those suits  would be subject to foreign limitation law. However, as explained by Justice Holmes, for suits filed here, it is understood that the law of limitation of liability is a part of our maritime law, and the 1851 statute is to be applied whether favorable or adverse to a foreign ship or her claimants?. This result, of course, left less for TITANIC's  victims. TITANIC's post casualty value was minimal. The Supreme Court?s decision  justified immediate criticism of the  law and a call for Congressional action  to provide a larger fund in the event of death or personal injury. It is noteworthy, however,  that it more or less took other maritime disasters for Congress to finally amend the original limitation statute to provide for a separate and additional fund of money in the event the post casualty value of the vessel is less than the value of the personal injury or death claims. The loss in 1934 of the MORRO CASTLE, an American passenger vessel that burned off of the coast of New Jersey with a loss of 135 lives, as well as other fatal casualties, set off a further crusade against limitation of liability involving loss of life.  The law was amended primarily because of the MORRO CASTLE disaster. For personal injury and death claims, the U.S. Congress modified the original statute in the direction of the English practice of a fixed sum of money per  gross ton of vessel as the available fund.   The original amendment allowed for an additional  fund of sixty dollars per gross ton. The statute was subject to further amendments and in its latest version  requires  the limiting shipowner to establish a separate fund of up to four hundred and twenty dollars per gross ton of the vessel if the initial fund (vessel and pending freight) is inadequate to pay personal injury and death claims.  That figure applies to ?distinct occasions?. Thus, if two or more distinct occasions of personal injury or death occur in connection with one marine casualty, the shipowner may indeed be required to establish a very sizeable fund. It is also noteworthy that many seafaring nations of the world have signed the  Athens Convention on the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage By Sea, 1974. The United States has not acceded to that Convention. The Athens Convention presumes fault in the case of death or injury due to shipwreck, collision, stranding, explosion, fire or a defect in the ship. However, the shipowner?s damages are limited by a formula set forth in the Convention. TITANIC was thus the first of several disasters that created the drive to make more money available  to the innocent victims of marine casualties, while still affirming the right of a U.S. federal court to apply the American  law of limitation of liability, regardless of the flag or ownership of the vessel. The Safety of Life At Sea Convention The TITANIC disaster had other legal consequences. Subsequent investigations found that the ship was steaming to fast in dangerous waters, that lifeboat space had been provided for less than three-fourths of the passengers and crew, and that the S.S. CALIFORNIAN, close to the scene, had not come to TITANIC?s rescue because the radio operator  was off duty and asleep. The international community has since sponsored many international conventions that deal with ship safety and collisions at sea. At the center of this vast body of law is the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. SOLAS was a direct consequence of TITANIC. A version of SOLAS was first signed in 1914. However, the first world war delayed its implementation. A second version was finally signed in London on May 31, 1929.  Eighteen nations, including the United States, were officially represented at the Convention.  The U.S. Senate consented to its ratification in June, 1936 and with only minor reservations it became part of our maritime law as well. SOLAS made many reforms, such as lifeboat space for every person on a ship, lifeboat drills, and the maintenance of a full time radio watch while at sea. SOLAS was also an effort to standardize construction devices for safety, such as watertight subdivision of ships, bulkheads, etc.  A North Atlantic ice patrol was created. In fact, much of SOLAS was a direct response to the cause of the TITANIC disaster. For example, Article 38 of the original version of SOLAS reads: When ice is reported on, or near, his course, the Master of every ship at night is bound to proceed at a moderate speed or to alter his course so as to go well clear of the danger zone. TITANIC caused reforms that has resulted in safer ships. Marine casualties often have that effect. You can review the full  text of the original version of SOLAS in our College?s library. It can be found at 1929 American Maritime Cases (AMC) 993. This author is interested in learning more about how maritime casualties changed the maritime law, whether in this country, or at the international level. I hope to apply this information  for use in future articles.  Please contact me should you wish to contribute your ideas.