Liability as Captain or Crew

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

DavidM

Valued Technical Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
6,827
Location
USA
The recent thread on finding a crew position to build experience, got me thinking about my own experience in both a commercial setting as captain as well as unpaid crew.

First, as unpaid crew (other than expenses) to help a boat owner move his new boat to its final mooring area, I think any recreational boat policy will recognize that this use is covered under the policy for both the captain and his crew. So if something disastrous happens, i.e. a fellow crew member falls off and drowns or you hit another boat and knock a passenger off and he drowns, the captain's boat policy should cover the claim (if proven) up to the policy limits of typically $1.0 million or more if there is also an umbrella policy.

It probably gets sticky if the crew member is being paid for his time. The insurance company (if they know this) might not cover his liability since he is getting paid, but that is just a supposition on my part.

Much clearer is what happens when a boat broker causes an accident while showing a boat and causes significant damage, injury or death. Boat brokers are considered independent contractors and even though the brokerage has insurance, it usually does not extend to the boat broker.

How do I know this? Well, I worked as a boat broker for about a year in Annapolis. This was a very responsible brokerage. The owner was president of the boat broker's association, YBAA and she played by all of the rules and did not allow any gimmicks (well we could be on the receiving end of a gimmick if another broker was the listing agent, but hey that is the way buying and selling almost anything works these days. Look at what is going on in commission splitting in the real estate industry today).

I am a pretty astute guy although no lawyer so I asked my new boss if I could look at her policy, and she was quite open with me. The policy clearly covered the owner and the brokerage's employees and no one else. I wasn't an employee as noted above.

I talked to my fellow brokers and they really didn't care. Their assets weren't worth litigating over, but mine probably were. I talked to a couple of marine insurance agents and discovered that a liability only policy covering me would take about 15% of my annual gross income as a broker. I even found a couple of pending cases. In one a broker was showing a boat and when he pulled the boat into the dock and bumped and scraped pretty hard, one of his passenger's fingers got pinched off in the impact. The passenger obviously was claiming that she wasn't warned to keep her fingers inside the boat, he crashed into the dock and her husband was an attorney! The guy was royally screwed.

So, I hired an Annapolis marine attorney to consult with and he agreed with all of the above. He suggested forming an LLC for just me, putting my LLC name on my business cards, opening a bank account for the LLC's income (commissions) and expenses and always making it known to potential customers that I was operating under the LLC, not as an individual. That is what PSneed did in the previous thread. It cost about $1,000 in legal fees (20 years ago) and was cheaper than a few months of insurance, so I did it. Fortunately I had no claims and all worked out well.

I am not sure that much has changed in the last twenty years. The US is still a highly litigious country, the claims and awards keep getting higher and the reasons more absurd.*So be aware of the risks and act accordingly.

David
 
The reason I got out is I found out the LLC protects assets against suits brought against the company or employees but you if you are directly involved in the incident....you along with the LLC can be held accountable.

The attorney I used (friend of my wife) didn't realize that little tidbit either when she recommended and drew up my LLC.
 
Last edited:
Hmm! Employees in the normal course of doing their job, are excluded from liability even if they are negligent. That principle has been in place for centuries.

I would have thought employees of an LLC should have the same protections. That is what the marine lawyer said.

So maybe I could sue him if I had gotten a claim -;).

David
 
I am just passing along what I was told/read/researched.

I can't say what happens under corporate law in all cases, just that an LLC (limited liability) in some cases allows the individuals within the company to be sued individually.

This is what I have heard/read many times....this is one of Bing's answers on the net.

"Regarding negligence, a member of a limited liability company (LLC) can be held personally liable for negligence 2. However, this is not a straightforward matter and depends on the specific circumstances of the case. In general, if the member is found to have acted negligently, recklessly, or intentionally, they may be held personally liable for the damages caused by their actions.

It’s important to note that LLC laws vary by state, so it’s best to consult with a lawyer who is familiar with the laws in your state if you have any questions or concerns about LLC liability 1."
 
Hmm! Employees in the normal course of doing their job, are excluded from liability even if they are negligent. That principle has been in place for centuries.

I would have thought employees of an LLC should have the same protections. That is what the marine lawyer said.

So maybe I could sue him if I had gotten a claim -;).

David

This is not a thing. An employer is liable for the negligent acts of their employees within the course of their employment, but that does not mean the employee is excluded from liability. They’re both liable. Typically plaintiffs go after the employer because it’s the deep pocket — and usually the one with insurance. But if the employer is an LLC with no assets and no insurance, all bets are off.
 
Yacht Brokers and Yacht Salespeople are required to be licensed and bonded with a $1,000,000 bond in the State of Florida. I believe California and Florida are the only states that require licensing.

From https://jetsurety.com/florida/yacht-and-boat-sales-bond#:~:text=A yacht broker or salesperson,Fraud

"A yacht broker or salesperson is bound to follow their license obligations and the Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act (Chapter 329, Florida Statutes). The Yacht Salesperson/Broker Bond covers financial damages when the salesperson or broker engages in the following actions:

Willful negligence
Fraud
Deceit
Violation of the Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act
Breach of contract made in a yacht sale/exchange"

Maybe this makes Florida the best place to buy and sell boats? :)
 
The reason I got out is I found out the LLC protects assets against suits brought against the company or employees but you if you are directly involved in the incident....you along with the LLC can be held accountable.

The attorney I used (friend of my wife) didn't realize that little tidbit either when she recommended and drew up my LLC.

It is commonly believed that conducting business activities through an LLC shields the owners' other assets from tort liabilities occasioned by those business operations. But, that ignores liability for one's own negligent actions and inactions. So, owners with any role in making (or failing to make) any decision or establishing any policy that contributed to the loss can get sued and will likely settle. That explains why tort suits so commonly have such an extensive list of named and doe defendants.
 
It is commonly believed that conducting business activities through an LLC shields the owners' other assets from tort liabilities occasioned by those business operations. But, that ignores liability for one's own negligent actions and inactions. So, owners with any role in making (or failing to make) any decision or establishing any policy that contributed to the loss can get sued and will likely settle. That explains why tort suits so commonly have such an extensive list of named and doe defendants.

So true....From what I understand, if I hire an employee and he screws up...the LLC would protect the LLC and the "boss".

But if I am a one employee LLC and me as the actual delivery captain screws up, sure insurance will cover me, but I am still probably getting sued (both LLC and me personally) and if the damages exceed my insurance....my personal assets can be attacked.

The real trick is fighting a gross negligence charge back to simple negligence. That's your best defense....
 
So true....From what I understand, if I hire an employee and he screws up...the LLC would protect the LLC and the "boss".

But if I am a one employee LLC and me as the actual delivery captain screws up, sure insurance will cover me, but I am still probably getting sued (both LLC and me personally) and if the damages exceed my insurance....my personal assets can be attacked.

The real trick is fighting a gross negligence charge back to simple negligence. That's your best defense....

We may be saying different things. Let's say you are in the movie business and you are producing a movie on a shoe string budget. Its a western so there are prop guns and you need an armorer. You interview a few and find a broad range of experience and comp expectations. You select the least expensive who has no experience, but her dad was in the business and had a great reputation. As a bonus, the armorer you hired is willing to help with catering. Perfect. At least until an "unloaded" gun goes off and kills someone, and the investigation reveals live ammunition on set. A rookie mistake -- in fact a lot of rookie mistakes. Of course the LLC is 100% liability, but if your hiring decisions were negligent (hard to imagine a jury coming to any other conclusion) you have liability too, and standing behind the LLC won't protect you. The moral of the story is that if you own the LLC, pulling the strings will expose you to liability. Every tortfeasor is liable for his own torts.

As for gross or simple negligence, in this context I think the only real significance is whether waiver or assumption of risk can be argued as defenses. In my hypo, I don't see it, but it could come into play in many common real world situations.
 
We may be saying different things. Let's say you are in the movie business and you are producing a movie on a shoe string budget. Its a western so there are prop guns and you need an armorer. You interview a few and find a broad range of experience and comp expectations. You select the least expensive who has no experience, but her dad was in the business and had a great reputation. As a bonus, the armorer you hired is willing to help with catering. Perfect. At least until an "unloaded" gun goes off and kills someone, and the investigation reveals live ammunition on set. A rookie mistake -- in fact a lot of rookie mistakes. Of course the LLC is 100% liability, but if your hiring decisions were negligent (hard to imagine a jury coming to any other conclusion) you have liability too, and standing behind the LLC won't protect you. The moral of the story is that if you own the LLC, pulling the strings will expose you to liability. Every tortfeasor is liable for his own torts.

As for gross or simple negligence, in this context I think the only real significance is whether waiver or assumption of risk can be argued as defenses. In my hypo, I don't see it, but it could come into play in many common real world situations.

I think we are at least somewhat aligned.

Many of these cases seem simple but get complicated fast...every time I go to explain, I get lost in the ins and outs of it all. I just know that between posts I read at least 10 examples written by law firms where LLC owners can be sued personally. So it can and does happen.
 
A couple parallel concepts here. First, you cannot waive away gross negligence. The bar is pretty high, well above incompetence.

Second, for LLC protection, key is keeping an arms length relationship between the owner and the LLC. For example, many owners get lazy about this and will transfer funds directly from the LLC to themself to cover a personal expense. There are accounting rules on maintaining proper distance between the owner and the corporation. I'd imagine Step #1 for a plaintiffs attorney is to subpoena all financial records and look for crossover. Voila - corporate veil is pierced and owner is dragged into liability.

Peter
 
A couple parallel concepts here. First, you cannot waive away gross negligence.

My point exactly -- otherwise I don't see the distinction between gross and simple making any difference to the prospect of personal liability.

Second, for LLC protection, key is keeping an arms length relationship between the owner and the LLC.

Peter

Respecting corporate formalities is necessary to the preservation of the LLC shield, but it is not sufficient to protect its owner from liability for the LLC's activities. My point in that regard was that if the owner's management of the LLC was negligent, the owner will have personal liability even without "piercing" the LLC. Consider my example above -- even if the movie production LLC had respected all formalities, its owner, in the circumstances I described, would still be personally exposed to liability.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the business card identifying the LLC and answering the phone in the name of the LLC, my attorney had a couple of other things I should do to keep the veil intact:

1. Fund the LLC with sufficient capital. 20+ years ago this was $2,000 then, probably $5,000 now.

2. Payout a fixed percentage, I chose 80% (to leave enough for #3 below) of the LLC’s commission income as my wages. If all was well when I quit brokering I would close out the bank account and take the original capital plus earnings.

3. Pay my expenses, car mileage and entertainment to me monthly.

4. File a separate LLC tax return each year. A bit of a pain if I had continued, but I stopped brokering before the end of the year, had no liability concerns, so I flushed the whole thing and filed it all on my return.

David.
 
Wouldn't another piece for personal liability protection is to own no assets personally. All personal assets become owned by another entity. Like a trust or corporate entity. Carry some personal lability insurance and the max liability would be the limits of the policy. And maybe potential future income.

An attorney will always look at the assets and insurance of the at fault party to see really how deep are the pockets. However, a BK might be in the mix for any judgement amount greater than liability limits of a policy.

Real assets can be further protected. (At least in Real Estate my area of experience) That is to create an entity and the entity attaches a loan to the asset. (Real Estate) The loan would exceed the equity of the property and recorded. Such that a title search would show the asset has no equity. You can sue me. You can win the law suit. To get to my investment property you have to pay off the liens. The pay off goes to my entity. And usually any search would show negative equity (like being over extended) and discourage the suit in the first place.
 
Last edited:
By definition, no one can have a legal position based on a "sham" or a better word would be fraud.

However, any entity that is legally created (in AZ that creation would be through the Arizona Corp Commission) can be owed debt. Nearly all businesses are legally created entities. And any debt can be legally secured to Real Estate by the recording of a deed. The debt may or may not be a home loan. (AZ doesn't use Mortgages as a loan. Trust Deeds) Private loans secured to Real Estate can have any terms that the two parties agree on. With any kind of repayment structure. Judgments would be the same. Except the terms were either agreed to in advance in the event of a default. Or as a result of a legal action.

A legally created business entity is treated as a stand alone business.

Action
 
Have had professional corp, LLC, S and C corp, closely held, partnerships etc. Been repetitively told by various att’y if it can be shown the main reason for the legal entity is to escape liability it is a very weak vail of protection in court. They will just name you another way and may demonstrate the entity was developed just to escape liability.
Perhaps you consider yourself judgement proof if you have no assets but that will follow you in future business relationships and getting insurance.
Been told best to set up vails of protection but to also offload exposures with appropriate insurance. Also to place major assets in trusts appropriately constructed so they cannot be named or if named it will go nowhere.
 
The recent thread on finding a crew position to build experience, got me thinking about my own experience in both a commercial setting as captain as well as unpaid crew.
Reading the whole thread, my interest is very focused on the crew issue.
Over the years, started to be more concern about having people aboard, either as guests or “volunteer” crew.

I hope my liability/umbrella coverages will protect me under clear conditions that meet both categories, guests and volunteer.

On the “professional/paid” group, gets sticky if not clear documentation of “proper” insurance is provided?

Not sure what “proper” documentation will be?
 
Reading the whole thread, my interest is very focused on the crew issue.
Over the years, started to be more concern about having people aboard, either as guests or “volunteer” crew.

I hope my liability/umbrella coverages will protect me under clear conditions that meet both categories, guests and volunteer.

On the “professional/paid” group, gets sticky if not clear documentation of “proper” insurance is provided?

Not sure what “proper” documentation will be?
Proper documentation is up the the insurance underwriter. It varies company to company and can seem to be quite screwy. As an example I am selling my boat without a broker. Which means without the broker's qualified and insured boat movers to move the boat to survey haulout. I am unavailable so looked into hiring someone. I contacted a licensed, insured and experienced delivery capt. The underwriter said no, I cannot use someone I pay for. Very strange but that's the way it is.
 
thanks

confirms my feelings

Contracts are drawn to keep lawyers busy.
There are as many outcomes as interpretations

I read comments and threads on this forum, although I am still a sailboat owner looking to make the transition.

Focusing on smaller power boat for just one person (me) and hopefully be free from “crew assist”

But not free from potential liability issues, people and circumstances are so inventive.
 
Plus there may be some legal issues with the US Government and mariner related laws.

I started a quick search and couldn't find much, but what I did turned into a quick quagmire of "maybe this and maybe that".

As an owner, if I was to do it once or rarely...probably better to ask forgiveness if caught as long as I covered some of the basics...otherwise I would place a call to a maritime focused attorney in addition to the insurance company which I definitely would (they may shed more light on requirements).
 
Last edited:
Have unpaid crew frequently and rarely paid crew for passage in the past. Have a basic agreement they sign that includes a lot of things. But among them a waver of liability for what that’s worth. Had it reviewed once in the distance past by a lawyer so don’t know if currently the language should be different. I think as a captain you’ve made a big commitment to a crew. But also they have made a commitment to you and the boat. It’s been helpful on rare occasion when a crew doesn’t act as (s)he should. It’s spelled out what’s expected so hard to argue about. Added the liability piece at the suggestion of a lawyer friend. But he noted that it could be contested in some situations.
 
Back
Top Bottom