86
[The statement of Harry Gotimer follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRY A. GOTIMER, A MEMBER OF THE LAW FIRM OF
KIRLIN, CAMPBELL & KEATING, NEW YORK CITY AND WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of Congress, my name is Harry A. Go-
timer. I am a member of the law firm of Kirlin, Campbell and Keating of New York
City which has principally engaged in the practice of admiralty law for over 100
years. I am also an Adjunct Professor of admiralty law at New York Law School, as
well as a graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and a licensed
merchant mariner.
Our law firm represents major shipowners and marine underwriters. We repre-
sent United States Lines, Inc. and Exxon Corporation 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 collision 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 Pablo Reach on
October 1, 1980 resulting in damages of approximately $5,500,000; and the collision
of the SS American Aquarius and a dock in Balboa on January 12, 1981 resulting in
damages to that vessel of approximately $540,000 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 at-
torney involved in handling claims before the commission under the current proce-
dures.
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. While there may be many reasons for this,
one in particular is that by statute and case law, the liability and quantum of dam-
ages can be fairly well evaluated by experienced admiralty practitioners after all
the relevant facts are obtained and analyzed.
The present statute provides that for injuries occurring in the locks (Public Law
96-70, Title I, 1411, 1415) and for injuries occurring outside the locks where re-
sulting damages are less than $120,000 (Public Law 96-70, Title I, 1412, 1415) the
Panama Canal Commission must adjust and pay for such injuries on the basis of
proportionate fault, i.e.-the Commission shall pay an amount which does not
exceed the percentage of fault of its employee's negligence in causing the casualty.
For injuries occurring outside the locks where damages exceed $120,000, the Com-
mission is prohibited from adjusting and paying claims but rather is required to
submit the claim to Congress in a special report with its recommendations (Public
Law 96-70, Title I, 1415(b)).
I recommend amending the current statute with respect to injuries occurring out-
side the locks to provide a judicial remedy to claimants damaged by the negligence
of Panama Canal Commission employees, principally the pilots who by law are in
complete control and command of a vessel's navigation during its transit through
the Canal.
The current procedure for handling claims occurring outside the Canal's locks and
where the amount involved exceeds $120,000 does not afford the same remedies as
are available to claimants for casualties occurring in the locks.
With respect to both types of claims, the present procedure is that promptly after
a casualty occurs, an investigation is conducted by the Board of Local Inspectors of
the Panama Canal Commission. This investigation basically and almost exclusively
deals with the factual and navigational situation leading up to the casualty. The
Board then prepares findings and conclusions indicating fault but they, at least in
our experience, do not apportion liability. Damages are thereafter submitted to and
reviewed by the Claims Branch of the Panama Canal Commission. Then, with re-
spect to claims arising from "in lock" casualties and "outside the locks" claims
under $120,000, the claimants and Commission attempt to reach an amicable settle-
ment. Failing in which the claimant in "in lock" claims is afforded a judicial
remedy. However with respect to "out of locks" claims exceeding $120,000, the Com-
mission is not empowered to settle such claims but, rather a special report is pre-
pared by the Commission and submitted to the Congress w which is then required to
deal with the claims.
With respect to "out of locks" claims at no time other than during the initial in-
vestigation does the claimant have the right to participate in the procedure, to
argue or urge its position or even to know what issues are being considered as rele-