How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 110473
Experience:  All corporate law, including non-profits and charitable fraternal organizations.
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In Admiralty law, is there a general requirement, for commercial

This answer was rated:

In Admiralty law, is there a general requirement, for commercial vessel operators to supply their Vessel Masters/ Captains with reasonable equipment to comply with EPA and regulatory laws? I, as a Master, have recently had a new regulatory requirement forced upon me. This is the latest in a long list of ridiculous, unreasonable, requirements. Since these relatively small businesses (shipping companies and oil transport service companies) are heavily regulated, they just keep giving in to these laws without a fight and passing on the ultimate responsibility to us. The crews. When we don't have what we need , then we get the old wink and nod gesture. We are supposed to just keep the vessels moving at any cost, and go along to get along. We are not equipped for most of it and I would like to know what course to steer here. Would I have a strong case against my company and the regulatory bodies. One or the other? My claim would be that it is impossible to comply.
Under Maritime law, the vessel is supposed to comply with ALL government regulations and supply all equipment and when an accident or injury occurs and they are found not to have the required equipment, the vessel owner will be held strictly liable if the failure to have equipment required by law contributed in any way to the accident. Other than that, if the vessel is boarded or inspected, the captain would be cited for not having the proper equipment. Also, the government agencies can simply stop the vessel from operating for not complying with all regulations. The EPA and all of the other agencies pass these regulations intending ALL owners comply with them and the owners are taking the risk, as are the captains, for non-compliance.

I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT for my answer. This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!

If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.

Use of this service does not create any attorney client relationship. Any information provided is not the practice of law but intended to direct you in finding an attorney in your locale.

You can always request me through my profile at or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”

Customer: replied 7 years ago.
More specifically, I am thinking of action, based on the fact that it is imposssible to comply. The implication is that I can either overlook the shortcoming and hope nothing happens or actually demand that I am properly equipped. That would cost me my job. Would this be a valid basis for legel action?
The time for that was during the contest period when they were formulating the rules. The problem with trying to sue the government after the fact on these cases is that it will cost you much more to litigate a likely losing battle than the cost of compliance. If you are fired for reporting to them that they are in violation, then you could have a potential retaliation claim against the employer for terminating you for reporting law violations which as master you are responsible to do.
Customer: replied 7 years ago.
But I would have to be able to prove that I lost my job for that reason? Realistically they could claim other reasons for firing me, right? Then the burden of proof is on me?
Correct, but there are rarely any smoking guns in these types of cases and the courts look at the timing from when you made your complaint to the employer and the termination and also look at the actual grounds given by the employer for the termination. Most of these cases are made off of circumstantial evidence and inferring of circumstances by the courts and they are not easy cases to win, but can pay big when you do win.
Law Educator, Esq. and 2 other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related Business Law Questions