BP Safety Violations

Video Transcript:
Cindy Speaker: According to the Center for Public Integrity, oil giant BP has been issued 97% of the most serious safety violations by government safety inspectors over the last three years. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Jordan Barab, has said, “The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious systemic safely problem in their company.”

My guest today is Houston attorney Terry Bryant and he is well-acquainted with BP’s safety violations having handled some of the cases that resulted from the Texas City disaster back in 2005.

So Terry, thank you for joining me today.

Terry Bryant: Oh, thanks for having me.

Cindy Speaker: Well Terry, what do we know about BP’s safety violations?

Terry Bryant: Cindy, under the Freedom of Information Act, we know that BP received a total of 862 citations between June of 2007 and February of 2010 at two of their refineries in Texas City and Toledo, Ohio. As you said, that is 97% of the most serious violations issued to any company.

Cindy Speaker: That is just alarming.

Terry Bryant: It is. But what is even more alarming is that of the 862 citations they received, 760 were classified as egregious-willful, and another 69 is willful. Virtually all of the citations were for alleged violations of the OSHA Process Safety Management Standard.

Cindy Speaker: And my understanding is that this refers to things like the storage of flammable liquids and rules regarding emergency shutdown systems.

Terry Bryant: Correct. What is really unbelievable though is that this company was able to continue full operations even though they had 760 violations termed egregious-willful.

Cindy Speaker: And what exactly does that mean?

Terry Bryant: Well, OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee’s safety and health. These violations are so serious that OSHA can actually refer those that result in worker deaths to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

Cindy Speaker: Do you think that will happen in the BP case regarding the 11 who died?

Terry Bryant: Well, I don’t know, but I think it probably will result in 11 wrongful death cases on the civil side of the docket.

Cindy Speaker: And what is the difference between a criminal case and a wrongful death case?

Terry Bryant: The difference between a criminal case and a civil case is the standard of proof. In a criminal case, one has to prove what is called “beyond a reasonable doubt”, whereas in a civil case, one simply has to prove more likely than not. In other words, just over 50%.

Cindy Speaker: You know Terry, we’ve seen this so many times. The Goliath corporate entities, they care much more about profits than people. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know what the line is that must be crossed before there is a criminal prosecution. But as a layperson, I think it’s been crossed and if the criminal justice system gets involved, maybe we won’t see a company continue to operate when it’s been assessed as having serious systemic safety problems.

Terry Bryant: Yes. The indifference and disregard for workers in some of these large corporations is truly egregious.

Cindy Speaker: Terry, if someone wants more information, how can they reach you?

Terry Bryant: They can reach us by calling 1-800-444-5000 and they can also reach us on our website, terrybryant.com.

Cindy Speaker: Terry, thank you for your time today.

Terry Bryant: You’re welcome Cindy, it’s always a pleasure.

Cindy Speaker: This is Cindy Speaker for State Law TV.

Transocean Oil Rig Explosion

Video Transcript:
Cindy Speaker: On April 20, 2010, an offshore oil rig owned by Transocean Limited exploded off the coast of Louisiana. Tragically, 11 crew members are missing and Transocean reports an additional 17 workers were injured.

We’re going to talk today with Houston attorney Terry Bryant who has handled these kinds of cases. And Terry, are you on the phone with me now?

Terry Bryant: Yes, I am. Thanks for having me.

Cindy Speaker: Well, thank you for being here. Well Terry, I was actually watching CNN last night and Douglas Brinkley, who is a noted historian, had some tough words for BP. One of the things he said is—and this is quote, “BP has been cutting a lot of corners on safety issues.” And then, he went on to comment on what he called a “milly mouth statement” and said that BP is not facing the consequences of what the company is responsible for. What do you think about that? What’s your take on that?

Terry Bryant: Well, I think BP has had their problems for a number of years. They had the explosion down in Texas City which brought a lot of attention to that company. And now, they have this disaster going on with getting attention from everywhere, including the White House.

Cindy Speaker: Right. What are the facts that we know?

Terry Bryant: Well, we have about four things that we do know and that is there are about 200,000 gallons of oil coming out of that disaster right now on a daily basis. This is going to have a devastating effect on wildlife. BP is making their usual response to these kinds of problems, which is to talk about how they hope to be safe and that sort of thing, and the disaster may eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Cindy Speaker: According to a news report I read last night, a lawsuit was already filed seeking damages of $5 million plus on undetermined punitive damages on behalf of affected Louisiana commercial industries, and my question to you is who should be calling an attorney right now?

Terry Bryant: Well, people that are injured or killed as a result of this tragedy should be seeking legal help now. As far as the fishermen, I can’t believe that the lawsuit is only for $5 million in damages. That seems awfully low to me.

Cindy Speaker: And Terry, is there any evidence yet that there are safety violations in this?

Terry Bryant: I think it’s too early to tell that and probably what will happen is that the government will launch an investigation in addition to BP’s internal investigation. So at some point, the facts will be determined and the cause of this tragedy will be determined.

Cindy Speaker: For these injured workers, what do you recommend that they do as a course of action, or their family members for those that did not survive?

Terry Bryant: I think it’s important that the family members of the workers who are missing are protected from a legal standpoint because British Petroleum has a whole team of lawyers that are working on this case. So it’s important that the workers have legal representation, as well the loved ones of the ones that are missing or may have been killed.

Cindy Speaker: Early in this conversation Terry, you mentioned the Texas City disaster. Was your firm involved in that?

Terry Bryant: Yes. We were involved in the Texas City disaster and represented a number of people that were horrifically injured by that blast.

Cindy Speaker: And how would you compare what’s happened recently to that disaster in terms of the scope of the damage?

Terry Bryant: From what I’ve heard, this appears to be one involving much greater damage both to individuals and to the environment.

Cindy Speaker: Well Terry, if someone has specific questions, how can they reach you?

Terry Bryant: They can call my toll free number at 1-800-444-5000, or find us on the web at TerryBryant.com.

Cindy Speaker: Well Terry, thanks so much for your time today.

Terry Bryant: Oh, thanks for having me.

Cindy Speaker: This is Cindy Speaker reporting.

Doctrine of Unseaworthiness

Video Transcription:
Cindy Speaker: What is the doctrine of unseaworthiness? That’s our topic on this episode of Maritime Law TV. My guest in internationally recognized maritime lawyer, Terry Bryant of the Houston firm of Terry Bryant Accident and Injury Law.

Terry, nice to have you again.

Terry Bryant: Nice to be here, Cindy.

Cindy Speaker: Terry what makes a vessel seaworthy?

Terry Bryant: According to court, a vessel is seaworthy if the vessel and all of its parts and equipment are reasonably fit for their intended purpose and it is operated by a crew, reasonably, adequate and confident for the work assigned.

Cindy Speaker: Okay. Now, let’s look at the flip side of that. What is the doctrine of unseaworthiness.

Terry Bryant: A vessel is considered unseaworthy if the vessel or any of its parts or equipment is not reasonably fit for the intended purpose, or if the crew is not reasonably adequate or competent to perform the work assigned.

Cindy Speaker: Let’s talk about some specific examples of unseaworthiness.

Terry Bryant: Okay. One example would be having a seaman or crew member on the vessel that is not properly trained to do his or her job, and therefore, causes someone else to be injured on board.

Cindy Speaker: Now, does that also apply to cruise ships?

Terry Bryant: It does. Cruise lines are required to operate their ships in a manner that does not cause injury.

Cindy Speaker: So technically, the Titanic was unseaworthy, because they did not have enough life boats on board and that was a huge factor in the mass of number of deaths that occurred.

Terry Bryant: Yes, I think that history shows that the Titanic was definitely unseaworthy.

Cindy Speaker: How about other examples.

Terry Bryant: If a cable breaks and causes injury to a seaman, that seaman could claim that the vessel was unseaworthy. If the vessel is not fully staffed and the crew is asked to work unreasonably long days or work so hard that they sustain undue injury. Another example would be if the deck of the vessel is not properly maintained. Maybe it has a build up of oil that causes a seaman to slip and fall and be badly injured. And a final example would be, if proper safety equipment is not provided for certain tasks and the result is injury to a seaman.

Cindy Speaker: Terry, what should a seaman or cruise ship member do if they’re injured in one of these ways, and they believe that this doctrine of unseaworthiness is a significant factor?

Terry Bryant: Well, you know, we live in a day of great technological capability and that can come into play here. Most people now have cell phones. There are also camera phone, and it is also pretty common to have a phone or device that record audio and video. So for one thing, I recommend that you endeavor to capture images of any of these situations that you believe caused your vessel to be unseaworthy.

The other thing is that you need to talk with an experienced Jones Act lawyer who is going to help you understand your legal rights. One of the challenges of being injured at sea is it not always possible just to pick the phone and call an attorney. But once you return to land, I highly recommend that you do that. Most Jones Act lawyers will give you a free consultation, I know we do. So it just makes sense to take that step. This is a very complicated area of the law and it is not something that the average person is going to be able to handle on their own.

Cindy Speaker: Terry, if someone has specific questions or wants more information, how they can reach you?

Terry Bryant: They can call us at 1-800-444-5000 or they can find us on the web at www.terrybryant.com.

Cindy Speaker: Terry, thank you for your time.

Terry Bryant: Thank you, Cindy.

Cindy Speaker: Until next time. This is Cindy Speaker form Maritime Law TV.

Pirate Hijacking and Jones Act Law

Video Transcript:
Affecting change through the legal system, justice in action. Seven months ago, America watched as a group of Somali pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama, a cargo ship in route to Kenya. During the attack, the pirates held an American sea captain hostage. After a four-day stand off, Captain Richard Phillips was rescued and brought to safety. But during that siege, the lives of the entire were changed as the men on that vessel were held for some 13 hours at 130 degrees in the hole of the ship. One of the crew members, Richard Hicks was the first to file a law suit in that case and I talked with his attorney Houston lawyer Terry Bryant about the events of that traumatic day.

Terry Bryant: During that time, they were not sure whether they would able to live ever again, so they were in great fear of their life.

Cindy Speaker: On November 18th, 2009, the Maersk Alabama was attacked again but this time with a much different outcome. I have a quote from navy vice admiral William E. Gortney. He says, regarding the most recent attack, this is a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action to prevent being attacked, and while we recommend that ships follow industry best practices if their in high risk areas. It would have been even better if the industry had been following best practices while in high risk areas like such as the Maersk Alabama was in when attacked previously back in April of 2009.

I spoke with Terry Bryant again this morning and I asked him, what was the difference about the most recent attack and what has changed since the April attack that gave this story a happy ending.

Terry Bryant: What is different is that these ship owners have apparently decided to take responsibility for protecting their crew members in a way that allowed these crew members to be—what I think is that our lawsuit that filed back in May has had an effect on these shipping companies and their insurance companies. They’ve decided that the taking of their crew member lives in a serious way and protecting the crew member lives is an important business practice for them. It’s important that the government not be the one to have to step up at tax payer expense and provide security for private enterprise.

Cindy Speaker: The attack yesterday is really evidence that the system works.

Terry Bryant Yes, the system works because we have a very sophisticated judicial system that places responsibility on companies and insurance companies that are not doing the right thing for the people that work for them. Often times what happens in the judicial system is that changes brought about from bad things happening to people. For example, there are some products that have been improved on and made safer because of the judicial system and the justice that people were able to obtain for their injuries and things like that. So the Judicial system brings about change that is good and safe for the public.

Cindy Speaker: Effecting positive change. Attorneys that champion the causes of innocent victims put themselves into a crossfire where they are often ridiculed when in fact, they are a catalytic force in changing laws that protects consumers from some of the greedy practices of big businesses that care far too much about profit and for too little about people. This is Cindy Speaker reporting from State Law TV.

-

Video Transcript:
Cindy Speaker: Welcome to our first episode of Maritime Law TV. My name is Cindy Speaker and I’ll be your host. Maritime law is not a commonly known area of law, however, it has received some significant attention over the past year, primarily due to the reporting of various pirate attacks, most notably the highly publicize attack on the Maersk Alabama in April of 2009.

Most maritime law injuries and incidents, however, are not pirate attacks, but things such as back injuries, neck injuries and cargo injuries, cruise ship injuries also fall under the heading of maritime law, as to injuries that occur on private vessels. Today, we will introduce you to a specific area of maritime law known as the Jones Act.

The Jones Act known officially as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 was statute sponsored by Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington. It specifically covers the worker’s compensation rights of sailors and the use of foreign vessels in domestic trade.

When the Somalia pirate incident occurred in April, some of the crew filed claims under Jones Act law. Houston attorney, Terry Bryant was the first attorney to file a claim and it did so on behalf of a member of the Maersk crew. This is Mr. Bryant’s explanation of the Jones Act.

Terry Bryant: The Jones Act was enacted by congress to protect seafaring workers to make sure that they’re not injured and help them in a case of injury or harm while they’re out at sea. The Jones Act applies to generally any vessel that has a name on it that is actually used in maritime. Typically, it does not apply to offshore rigs that are stationary out in the gulf.

Cindy Speaker: Until next time. This is Cindy Speaker from Maritime Law TV.