Who do you think is to blame here? Who is liable and what is the type of liability?

Is there a problem of many

hands? Explain based on what we have learned in this lecture (you might disagree with the official verdict)

the immediate cause of the sinking was found to be negligence by the assistant boatswain,
asleep in his cabin when he should have been closing the doors, the official inquiry placed more
blame on his supervisors and a general culture of sloppiness in the shipowning company.
partly contributed to by serious negligence in the discharge of their duties by Captain David
Lewry (master), Leslie Sabel (chief officer) and Mark Victor Stanley (assistant bosun), and partly
contributed to by the fault of Townsend Car Ferries Limited (the owners).
Stanley has frankly recognized his failure to turn up for duty and he will, no doubt, suffer
remorse for a long time to come,
negligence involving the ship's crew as well as the significant responsibility of the
management of the company operating the ship for the accident

 blame on his supervisors and a general culture of poor communication in Townsend Thoresen.

1)The first person to blame is the assistant bosun. He meets all the four conditions of blame in this case.
There is wrongdoing here. From a virtue ethics perspective, a wise, caring, and responsible person
wouldn’t sleep during his job when he has an important duty to close the doors. This did lead the ferry
to capsize and passengers to die, as if the man was awake and closed the doors it would have been
prevented. There is some degree of foreseeability as if the man would’ve known if the doors are left
open water would go in and could potentially capsize the ferry. The man was also free to act, he could
have slept any other time. He would therefore be liable with recklessness and negligence. His
supervisors are also to blame since they didn’t check up on him. They would be liable with negligence
since they were carless or forgot to check whether he did his job. Similarly, to the crew and
management. They are all to blame and liable with strict liability and recklessness for the poor
communication and not reporting that the doors are still open.

The captain is responsible for the safety of the ship and of everyone on board. The captain brought the
ship into the open sea with the bow doors open! The captain did not ask the chief officer if all departure
preparations had been completed. In addition, the chief officer did not report anything to the captain.
Therefore, the captain is to blame and liable with negligence for not being responsible for making sure
everything was done and the ferry is safe to sail.

There is a problem of many hands here. We cannot limit the responsibility to one person to blame for
this disaster. The captain, the crew, the supervisors, and the assistant bosun each are responsible and
played a role in this disaster.

2) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/us/20mine.html
Massey Energy Co. recklessly ignored safety and allowed dangerous conditions to build inside a West
Virginia mine until a blast killed 29 men in the deadliest U.S. coal accident since 1970.

The owner made life difficult for miners who tried to address safety and built a culture in which
wrongdoing became acceptable.  Miners who tried to remedy the situation were punished. Another
area of negligence was the mine’s jury-rigged ventilation system, cited for 64 violations during 2009. 
Verdict : Former Massey Energy Chief Executive Don Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and
fined $250,000 for his role in a 2010 coal mine explosion that killed 29 people. He was also sentenced in
U.S. District Court to a year of supervised probation after release.

I do not completely agree with the verdict. For such reckless acts and negligence to the safety of the
mine workers the ruling is not just for the lives of the 29 workers. The owner should have compensated
to the families that were killed and injured during the blast. While I don’t know the details of the law
system, I believe the sentencing should have been more. The workers voiced their concerning about
their safety but were forced to keep working in fear of losing their jobs. The owner knew the risk and
danger he was putting his workers. Thus, it could be looked like a case of forced unsafe labor.