Titanic sub firm’s late CEO ‘was committed to safety’

MADRID: The co-founder of OceanGate Expeditions, which owned the submersible that imploded during a dive to the Titanic wreck, has defended the chief executive’s commitment to safety and risk management after he died with four others on the craft.
Guillermo Sohnlein, who co-founded OceanGate with Stockton Rush in 2009, left the company in 2013, retaining a minority stake.
Rush was piloting the Titan submersible on the trip that began on Sunday.
Debris from the vessel was found on Thursday.
Rush “was one of the most astute risk managers I’d ever met. He was very risk-averse. He was very keenly aware of the risks of operating in the deep ocean environment, and he was very committed to safety,” Sohnlein said.
“I believe that every innovation that he took ... was geared toward two goals: one, expanding humanity’s ability to explore the deep ocean. And secondly, to do it as safely as possible,” he said in video interview from his home in Barcelona.
Sohnlein said the public should refrain from speculating about the cause of the disaster and wait for the release of any official report after data had been collected and analyzed.
Questions about Titan’s safety were raised in 2018 during a symposium of submersible industry experts and in a lawsuit by OceanGate’s former head of marine operations, which was settled later that year.
This incident has prompted further debate.
“There’s going to be a time for (making assessments), and I don’t think right now is the right time to do that,” he said.
Liability waivers signed by passengers on the submersible may not shield the vessel’s owner from potential lawsuits by the victims’ families, legal experts said.
The passengers, who paid as much as $250,000 each for the journey to 3,810 meters below the surface, are believed to have signed liability waivers.
A CBS reporter who made the trip with OceanGate Expeditions in July 2022 reported that the waiver he signed mentioned the possibility of death three times on the first page alone.
Waivers are not always ironclad, and it is not uncommon for judges to reject them if there is evidence of gross negligence or hazards that were not fully disclosed.
“If there were aspects of the design or construction of this vessel that were kept from the passengers or it was knowingly operated despite information that it was not suitable for this dive, that would absolutely go against the validity of the waiver,” said personal injury attorney and maritime law expert Matthew D. Shaffer, who is based in Texas.
OceanGate could argue it was not grossly negligent and that the waivers apply because they fully described the dangers inherent in plumbing the deepest reaches of the ocean in a submersible the size of a minivan.
The degree of any potential negligence and how that might impact the applicability of the waivers will depend on the causes of the disaster, which are still under investigation.
“There are so many different examples of what families might still have claims for despite the waivers, but until we know the cause we can’t determine whether the waivers apply,” said personal injury lawyer Joseph Low of California.
The families could not be reached on Thursday. It is possible none of them will sue.