only when pirates attack AMERICAN ships...

[Spare Moody]

do we get an ******* crew member safely returning home and then immediately suing his employer because they "sent him into pirate-infested waters without adequate protection".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/27/...tes/index.html


and of course the rational question presents itself:
what would have been more 'adequate protection' than the brain-piercing bullets that the US Navy provided? do we really think this could have had a better outcome if the cook had access to a weapon??

[QuCongee]

do we get an ******* crew member safely returning home and then immediately suing his employer because they "sent him into pirate-infested waters without adequate protection"

That's right! We fancy Americans will not be held hostage without receiving compensation. What do you think we are?

[Derranged]

How bad are his injuries?

Its not a big deal, although I dont know if their liability carrier covers this sort of thing.. The policy language would refer to this as a "terrorist attack" I think.

[Spare Moody]

How bad are his injuries?

it's probably just punnitive damages for being exposed to a stressful situation.

[QuCongee]

it's probably just punnitive damages for being exposed to a stressful situation.

He deserves every penny!

[Sin City]

he has a legitimate case.. the Navy didn't intervene until after they got kidnapped.

[Sin City]

the company knowing that Somalia is full of pirates and that they will be travelling through those waters should have provided the ship with some sort of security. There is private security and police always for hire. the situation may have been prevented.
this is why the guy has a case.

[-Hyperion-]

what happened to the good ol times were people were just glad they had been saved and still alive?

[BrooklynBomber]

the company knowing that Somalia is full of pirates and that they will be travelling through those waters should have provided the ship with some sort of security. There is private security and police always for hire. the situation may have been prevented.
this is why the guy has a case.

He is right, if the company was too cheap to provide security(and there are plenty of sec companies out there who provide ship sec) they have to face the consequences.

[LoftyDog]

the company knowing that Somalia is full of pirates and that they will be travelling through those waters should have provided the ship with some sort of security. There is private security and police always for hire. the situation may have been prevented.
this is why the guy has a case.

There's an issue with having weapons on board and going to other countries. Some won't let you in their ports, that's why the merchant vessles don't have guns on board. They have high pressure hoses which can work in keeping the pirates at bay. Plus other things that can be done, like having faster boats. Point is, just because they weren't armed doesn't mean the company was negligent. He had to know he was in pirate infested waters and no security, nobody made him go on that boat.