I. Facts:
1. In December , Mrs. Ls (age 55), accompanied by daughters He (age 28), Fh (age 34), Es and other family members departed Miami on the Cruise Ship Vr for a cruise which included the Cayman Islands.
2. After departing port the ship’s staff hosted an excursion scheduling and safety presentation. Passengers attending the meeting were encouraged to book tours and excursions with tour groups and concessionaires through the cruise lines, with these bokings suggested for health and safety reasons.
3. As a result of this presentation, Mrs. Ls and her party decided to purchase a snorkeling excursion arranged through the cruise lines with Fk’s Watersports which operated out of Grand Cayman. The specific trip scheduled was titled “Rock Swim & Snorkel Adventure.”
4. On December 28, Mrs. Ls and her family disembarked the Vr and were taken ashore, where they transferred to a Watersports van for a ride to the boat which would take them on the snorkeling trip.
5. Per the above referenced statements, the party saw storm clouds gathering as the boat proceeded on the trip. After a number of minutes the boat stopped and the tour boat crew told the passengers to enter the water. Before stopping the passengers were asked to indicate who could or could not swim. Mrs. Ls said that she was a poor swimmer and a personal flotation device (PFD) was placed around her waist. Inflatable flotation devices were given to those who indicated that they were swimmers. Everyone was given snorkels, face masks and flippers.
6. According to the witness statements no instruction was given concerning use of the snorkeling equipment or PFD’s. The passengers then entered the water. Shortly thereafter a wind/rain storm enveloped the group. At this time Ms. He’s brother in law, Dh, instructed everyone with Mrs. Ls’ party to get out of the water until the rain cleared. During this time Mrs. Ls and her daughter Fh were seen approximately 100 feet from the boat with Fh waving for help.
7. Fh states that when she heard her husband Dh call for everyone to return to the boat, she came upon her mother in law, Ph, struggling with the snorkel equipment and having difficulty staying afloat. As Fh helped Mrs. Ph she was informed that Mrs. Ls was further out in the water. When she reached her, Fh stated that her mother was face down in the water with a weak pulse and frothing at the mouth. Fh motioned for the boat to come to her assistance with no response. She then began to swim with her mother who regained consciousness briefly, then was unresponsive. Upon reaching the tour boat Fh, her mother in law and two other passengers performed CPR. Save for the tour boat captain’s swimming out to her and not responding to her questions, no one from Watersports assisted her or offered an explanation. CPR was performed for 30-45 minutes before another boat arrived with emergency equipment. Upon being transported to a hospital, Mrs. Ls was pronounced dead.
8. He indicates in her statement that no instructions were given regarding snorkeling or rules for being in the water around the boat. She reports that her mother, and the other two poor swimmers, Pe and Ah, were given orange life vests which were placed around their waists. After the rain started and Mrs. Ls and Fh were seen waving for help, He made the staff aware that others were having difficulty. Attempts were then made to start the boat without success. After seeing a staff member with tools opening the engine hatch and later witnessing another staff member speaking presumably to the engine worker using the boat’s phone, He was told that the battery was dead.
9. Dd and his wife were passengers on the snorkel excursion. He is a sail boat owner/operator fromCanada. He indicates in his statement that he has been involved in boat navigation and instruction for 20 years as well as being a life guard for 30 years. He is also a volunteer in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. He, along with the other witnesses, state that they bought the excursion through the cruise lines because they believed that the lines would make every effort to insure that all their offered excursions are verified to be safe and professional.
10. Mr. Dd indicates that when the snorkel tour boat initially left the dock he noticed that the crew member handling the mooring line appeared to have no experience, almost injuring himself in the process of un-securing the lines. Mr. Dd watched sail boats in route to the snorkeling area, observing that the wind was blowing strongly, especially in light of the group’s intending to enter open waters while snorkeling. However, he states that he believed there would be no trouble as he trusted that someone would be taking care of the group’s safety. He adds that there was nothing in the way of safety swimming/snorkeling instructions with the exception of giving inflatable flotation devices to people who said they were swimmers and distributing PFD’s to non-swimmers.
11. After entering the water and cautioning his wife to stay near the boat due to the wind, Mr. Dd noticed people far away from the boat. He found this not very safe, believing that the captain should advise them to come back. A strong wind/rain storm then struck the group. Mrs. Dd was unable to make it back to the boat on her own and her husband had difficulty in assisting her. Upon reaching the vessel, Mr. Dd began to assist others in the water around him. His primary method for aiding swimmers was to tow them with an undersized life ring with a short length of line attached to it. He saw Mrs. Ls, realizing that she looked bad. He asked the crew to start the boat and was told that the engine was dead. He went to aid Mrs. Ls and brought her to the boat. (Note: Mr. Dd, being French-Canadian, does not consider himself proficient in English. There is a good probability that he, not the boat’s captain actually assisted Fh in the water with her mother. Hence Fh’s rescuer’s failure to speak to her.)
12. Mr. Dd relates that he saw two ladies doing CPR on Mrs. Ls and offered to assist them. He was also informed by the captain’s assistant that the boat had no electricity and that the radio was not working. He then asked for flares to signal other boats, but was told there were none on board. After an extend period a police boat finally arrived. Mr. Dd helped with the lines to the police boat as the excursion crew were not doing the job properly and might have injured themselves. When a second boat approached and he offered to help tie it to the excursion vessel, he was told to go away. Thereafter the lines damaged the excursion vessel confirming his belief that the crew was not professional. As a result of assisting a number of people back to tour boat, Mr. Dd reports that he injured his arm, resulting in physiotherapy for many months after his return home. He is of the opinion that with more than 30 people in the water there should have been a life guard and a small boat such as an inflatable, engine powered Zodiac provided by the tour operator.
13. When shown a picture of a Type II PFD, Mrs. Ls’ daughter confirmed that is the type placed around their mother’s waist.
14. I have sailed as a passenger on the cruise lines, attending presentations where I have been urged for matters of safety, health and security to book excursions only through this cruise line with tour operators described as reputable by the cruise line’s employees.
15. Water Sports Operations Guidelines, Cayman Islands Tourism Association (CITA) states that: “Watersports operator’s first duty is to the safety of all divers, snorkelers, riders, participants and other individuals effected by the Watersports operation.”
16. The Water Sports Operations Guidelines continue by stating: “The Watersports operator shall abide by the following:
1. Assure the safety of all participants.
2. Individually follow all safe diving, snorkeling, training and boating principles…
3. Maintain a level of professional competence equal to standards established by the Association.
5. “…Any vessel taking customers out for…snorkeling must be equipped with;
-Safety Equipment on vessels over 20f/6m up to 40f/12m shall carry not less than: (Among other items)
-Oxygen kit, First Aid Kit and Backboard
-VHF 2-way radio
-One sound-signaling apparatus
-Three hand held flares, one pocket mirror, and either one waterproof flashlight or one hand-held flare and two parachute flares – all in a watertight container.
-Safety Equipment on vessels over 40f/12m shall carry not less than:
-All equipment required for vessels 20-40f/6-12m in length and in addition;
-Three hand-held red flares, three parachute flares and one orange smoke signal – all in a watertight container.
-A vessel approaching within 200 yards/182 meters of a divers down flag (required when in-water activities are in progress)…shall not exceed a speed of 3 knots…and shall either make radio or visual contact with the person acting as look out on the vessel displaying such flag… (Ergo: a look out is required when divers/snorkelers are in the water.)
-All CITA members must monitor a VHF radio frequency for communications between vessels and from vessels to shore.
18. All vessel handlers/safety support crew must have current certification in CPR and training in first aid and rescue procedures.
II. Opinions:
1. Orange colored PFD’s normally found on tour or excursion boats are either Type I or Type II. Both types are designed to float the wearer tilted slightly backward with their face/chin above water, with the primary difference between the two types being the amount of flotation they provide. To work properly these PFD’s must be placed around the wearer’s neck, being slipped over the head. Flotation materials are therefore positioned on the right and left side of the user’s chest as well as behind their head. These PFD’s are held in place by one or more straps that go around the device and buckle in front of the lower chest, over the flotation materials. They also have neck straps/laces which are tied across the throat to secure the device’s collar. In no way should they ever be tied around anyone’s waist without having the person insert their head into the neck opening. Incorrectly placing a Type I or II PFD around the waist will insure their not working properly and not supporting the wearer per their designed specifications. This inept donning of a Type II PFD as confirmed by Mrs. Ls’ daughters is indicative of utter, gross incompetence on the part of the excursion boat’s crew.
2. Placing a large number of inexperienced persons in the water off-shore in the face of strong winds and an approaching storm is unconscionable. This inexcusable ineptness is compounded by:
A. No readily available/identified rescue swimmer personnel acting as life guards.
B. No powered small craft aboard and/or in the water available to assist anyone in distress.
C. No radio or telephone system, with back up, available to call for help.
D. No visual emergency signaling equipment such as flares on the vessel.
E. No crew members trained/certified in CPR.
F. Insufficient ring buoy/rescue lines available to simultaneously retrieve numbers of persons in the water.
G. Unqualified, inexperienced crew members who offered next to no aid to those passengers requiring it.
H. No specific safety instruction or warnings given to passengers specifically regarding their in-water activities, as well as donning and proper wearing of flotation devices.
I. No back-up means of starting the vessel, especially in an emergency.
J. Apparently anchoring the vessel while those in the water are allowed to be blown away from it by the wind. (Drifting with the wind and current allows a vessel to pace swimmers. However, not placing anyone in the water under the circumstances presented in this case would have been the far better option.)
As a minimum items 2.: B., C., D., E., F., G., H., and I. in the foregoing are reflected in SOLAS/IMO/USCG(Safety Of Life At Sea/International Maritime Organization/US Coast Guard) standards, conventions and regulations which govern/apply to vessels such as those operated by the cruise lines. When endorsing and selling tours for Watersports tours there should be a reasonable expectation that the cruise lines would require and expect/inspect such proto-concessionaires as Watersports Tour’s to adhere to these basic safety guidelines.
3. As indicated by Mr. Dd and the members of Mrs. Ls’ family, they were lead to believe, during a cruise lines health and safety excursion presentation aboard the Vr, that the cruise lines endorsed and certified the reputable tours offered by Watersports. By making this presentation, endorsing and directing passengers to Watersports, as well as selling excursion tickets, the cruise cruse lines assumed responsibility for insuring that Watersports provided tour vessels and crews at a minimum as proficient and as well equipped as those of the cruise lines itself. Cruise line operators are required to meet the standards enumerated as lacking in paragraph II. 2. immediately above on their own vessels. Not requiring proto-concessionaires to maintain the same standards is grossly negligent as this absence of safety understandings and equipment is directly indicative of no regard whatsoever for the outcomes of the tour groups and the cruise line’s (in)actions.
4. The crew and vessel provided by Watersports were manifestly not seaworthy and dangerous in the extreme as indicated by their immediately evident failure to follow, or absence of those items of safety equipment or personnel practice standards listed by the CITA.
III. Conclusions:
1. I find that the cruise lines heedlessly and cavalierly hazarded its passengers by failing to insure that Watersports met the same standards of safety reasonably expected of their own crew members and vessels, while at the same time endorsing this incompetently maintained and un-professionally operated excursion venue as reputable and safe.
2. The ineptitude and egregiously dangerous disregard for passenger safety exhibited by Watersport’s directly lead to the avoidable and totally inexcusable death of Ls. Water-sports totally failed to provide the equipment and personnel basic to insuring the safety and welfare of its clients in direct contradiction to CITA guidelines.
This concludes my preliminary report. I reserve the right to supplement this report based on further discovery and/or evidence. My qualifications regarding the evaluation of causes of Ls’ death are set forth in my attached CV. My opinions are stated to a reasonable degree of probability and reflect my training, experience, education and understanding of the standards and science of aquatic safety.
