85
Pablo Reach on October 1, 1980, resulting damages of approximate-
ly $5,500,000.00; and the allision of the SS American Aquarius and
a dock in Balboa on January 12, 1981, resulting in damages to that
vessel of approximately $540,000.00, plus a contingent claim for in
rem liability for damages sustained by the dock owner and tug
owner.
I am testifying today not at the request of these shipowners, but
rather as an attorney involved in handling claims before the Com-
mission under the current procedures.
In general, as a practical matter, the vast majority of all claims
in the admiralty field are settled. I do not think it an exaggeration
to state that, in general, over 90 percent of the claims do not reach
trial. The damages and the probable result after litigation falls
within narrow parameters which can be fairly well evaluated by
experienced admiralty practioners after all the relevant facts are
obtained and analyzed.
I will abbreviate my statement by not going through the current
statue, if that is all right.
Mr. HUBBARD. As you know, your full statement will be in the
record.
Mr. GOTIMER. With respect to out-of-lock claims over $120,000, at
no time other than at the initial Board of Local Inspectors' investi-
gation does the claimant, the shipowner, the personal injury plain-
tiff, or the cargo owner participate in the procedure. What happens
is that approximately 24 hours after the casualty, a hearing is held
by the Board of Local Inspectors. The attorneys for the claimant do
participate fully in that. After which, the damages are submitted
to the claims branch of the Panama Canal Commission and they
request whatever additional supporting documentation they re-
quire. However, with response to these claims in excess of $120,000
outside the locks, at no time other than handing the damage docu-
mentation to the Commission is the shipowner or the claimant
privy to what factors are being considered as relevant in terms of
liability or damages until the report actually gets to Congress. That
report is confidential and unavailable.
I strongly support changing the law by allowing the Panama
Canal Commission to have settlement authority on all claims
where their employees negligence has contributed to a casualty. I
also recommend strongly that judicial review be granted to the
U.S. district court in any district which is convenient.
Finally, I think that any changes that are made should be retro-
active to include the claims such as the ones I am presently repre-
senting for my firm. We have a large number of claims. In our
opinion, they were caused not by the negligence on the part of our
employees, but rather by the pilot who was in command of the
ship. I think those claims ought to be included in any pending leg-
islation.
However, I do have a suggestion; and that is if for some reason
we cannot-if the law is passed and it cannot be retroactive, there
may well be authority under the congressional reference statute
for Congress to pass these to the U.S. Court of Claims for a hearing
and a determination on the merits of these claims.
I thank you for your time. I will be pleased to answer any ques-
tions you might have.
12-978 0 6