b'personsactingfortheowner],atorbeforeLimitation of Liability Act in its current formretroactivetoSeptember2,2019,thedate the beginning of each voyage, is imputed towould no longer be available.In particular, theof the M/V Conception casualty. This would theowner.Itistheownerslegalburdenresidual value of the vessel/$420 times tonnagedeprive the owner of the vessel of the ability to demonstrate that he or she had no suchlimitationstandardwouldnolongerapply.to invoke the Limitation of Liability Act in its privity or knowledge. Instead, financial liability will be determined bycurrent form.regulations to be promulgated by the U.S. Coast WhendecidingapetitionforlimitationofGuard that provide for just compensation inThus far, Congress has taken no action on the liability, a federal court engages in a two-stepany claim for which the owner or operator of aSmall Passenger Vessel Fairness Liability Act, process. It examines whether acts of negligencecovered small passenger vessel is found liable.but it is likely that the sponsors will seek to or unseaworthiness caused the casualty. AndThe legislation provides no guidance as to whathave its text included as part of this years Coast it determines whether the owner had actualjust compensation might consist of. Guard authorization legislation. Congressman knowledge of them, or could or should haveCarbajal is well-placed to accomplish this as he suchknowledgebeenobtainedpursuantAn unusual aspect of the Feinstein-Carbajalis chairman of the House Subcommittee on toreasonableinquiry.ifso,thepetitionlegislationisthatitwouldbeeffectiveCoast Guard and Maritime Transportation.forliabilitywillberejected.Denialcanbe baseduponmanagementsfailuretoensure maintenanceofequipmentandtraining ofcrew,andcompliancewithestablished maintenance and safety standards. In practice, a violation of Coast Guard requirements that contributes to the casualty will likely cause theThe Trusted Source for petition to limit liability to fail. Quality Wiper SystemsThere is no certainty that the court will grant the petition to limit liabilityFor example, in 2013 a ferry vessel collided with a sailboat, killing an occupant of the recreational vessel. The captain of the ferry was using a cell phonepriortothecollision,acircumstance that contributed to the crash (there was also negligence on the part of the operator of the sailboat).Shoresidemanagementhadno actual knowledge that the captain was using the cell phone at that particular time, but it was shown that managers knew that captains carried and used cell phones generally, and the owner had no policy governing the use of cell phones by vessel crew members. Therefore, the court imputed privity and knowledge of this allegedly hazardous condition to the owner and consequently denied the limitation petition.The proposed Small Passenger Vessel Liability FairnessActwouldnotaltertheLimitation of Liability Act for all vessels, but it would do so for (1) a vessel of no more than 100 gross tonswithovernightaccommodationsforup to 49 passengers, and (2) a vessel of no more than100grosstonsauthorizedtocarryupTHRUSTERSLIGHTINGSEATINGDOORSTRIM CONTROLWIPERSCONTROLSto150passengers.Alsoincludedwithinthe legislationstermcoveredsmallpassenger vessel would be a wooden vessel of any tonnage builtbeforeMarch11,1996,authorizedto carry any number of passengers on domesticwww.imtra.com 508.995.7000overnightvoyages.Forthesevessels,the 21 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2022'