84
Indeed, the record to date shows that there is no resolution at all following this
route for these claims.
Consider, if you will, that experience to date indicates that since 1979 there have
been ten (10) accident claims filed. The accidents occurred from November 8, 1979 to
May 25, 1981. The bureau of local inspectors (BLI) began its inspections as early as
November 9, 1979 and its reports were issued on various dates in 1980 and 1981. Up
to this point only two claims are ready for referral to the Congress and these were
sent to OMB and the Department of Justice for clearance for referral. These two
claims have languished in OMB for the last eight months and were finally forward-
ed to the Congress on November 8, 1982. Could anyone perceive that this system is
working, even if the Congress was the proper forum for tort damage claims? And
what will happen to these claims when they finally reach Congress after three to
four years! How rapidly will the Congress act on these claims? How would the Con-
gress process them? Will the Congress act at all? Should Congress honor such
claims, where will the money come from? We are convinced that Congress will
never pay such awards from general revenues-the taxpayers, but will tell the com-
mission to pay them, which is where the claim would be satisfied if the commission
were not exonerated from liability.
We further believe that elimination of the judicial review process effectuated by
the 1979 act is misplaced. The attention of Congress should not be distracted from
matters of national policy to analyze routine commercial claims which are more ef-
ficiently dealt with in the traditional forums provided by the Federal Courts.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot conceive of Congress' continued blind adherence to the
system established in the 1979 act with its numerous uncertainties and almost limit-
less delays, when it is clear under all the established principles of tort law that the
commission should bear the responsibility for the negligence of its tort feasor em-
ployee who is in complete control of the vessel in transit. Meanwhile the years since
enactment in 1979 begin to mount, claims accumulate, and the users of the canal
continue on without redress for their legitimate tort damage claims. What will
happen in the event of major catastrophe in the canal? We submit, Mr. Chairman,
that continuation of the present circumstances is unsatisfactory from every stand-
point and manifestly unfair to the users of the canal.
Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you, Mr. Corrado. You understand the pur-
pose of our hearing is to find out all we can about the need for leg-
islative change. You do agree that the two claims above $120,000
have not been delayed at this point by Congress?
Mr. CORRADO. Yes, sir. They only came to Congress a month ago.
Mr. HUBBARD. Right.
Let us hear at this point Mr. Harry Gotimer.
STATEMENT OF HARRY A. GOTIMER
Mr. GOTIMER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the sub-
committee, my name is Harry A. Gotimer. I am a member of the
law firm of Kirlin, Campbell & Keating of New York City and
Washington, D.C. It has been principally engaged in the practice of
admiralty law for over the past 100 years. In addition, I am an ad-
junct professor of admiralty law at New York Law School, a gradu-
ate of the U. S. Merchant Marine Academy, and a licensed mer-
chant marine officer.
Our law firm represents major shipowners and marine under-
writers. We represent United States Lines, Inc., and Exxon Corp. in
connection with casualties occurring in the Panama Canal since
the passage of the Panama Canal Act of 1979.
We are currently handling three claims presently pending before
the Panama Canal Commission which arose from casualties outside
the Panama Canal locks where damages exceed $120,000: the colli-
sion between the Esso Nassau and the Esso Guam occurring in
Balboa Reach on April 10, 1980, resulting in damages of approxi-
mately $1,280,000; the grounding of the SS American Apollo in San