89
table; and as I understood the testimony of the Commission and
government people, it was the same, perhaps stated just a little dif-
ferently. I do think it is consistent.
Mr. LUCIANO. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Mr. Corrado's
comments.
Mr. HUBBARD. How about accidents where it would not necessar-
ily be the negligence of the Commission employees?
Mr. CORRADO. Inside or outside the lock?
Mr. HUBBARD. Outside the lock.
Mr. CORRADO. Outside the locks? Under the present system or
under the last system?
Mr. HUBBARD. Under the present system. For example, Texaco
Kentucky, running into the yacht. Let's assume for the moment
that wasn't the fault of the Commission employees.
Mr. CORRADO. My recollection of the statutory language is-and I
have it here, although I had no chance to look at it-but my recol-
lection of the statutory language is that there is no Commission lia-
bility if there is no employee negligence and is diminished by the
amount of the negligence of the employee of the Commission.
Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you.
Again, to Mr. Corrado, one of the major concerns brought out in
your testimony is that the ship owners under Public Law 96-70 are
unable to exercise the right for judicial review of the Commission's
decision of the outside-the-locks claims. Prior to the enactment,
however, of this Public Law 96-70, when this judicial review right
was exercised on the average, were most of the Commission's deci-
sions adjusted in favor of the ship owner in settling the claim?
Mr. CORRADO. Adjusted, Mr. Chairman, by the courts in the regu-
lar judicial review, or by the Commission?
Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, adjusted by the courts.
Mr. CORRADO. I don't really know because I don't have a record
of all of the court's decisions. My guess is that when it went to
court-I really can't respond to that question, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause I don't know the decisions in the courts. Maybe somebody
else at the table might know some of the court decisions. My guess
is, though, that when it went to the court most of the decisions
were favorable to the shipowner because the Panama Canal Com-
pany had settled the ones favorable to it.
Mr. HUBBARD. Could you give us a better answer for the record
later?
Mr. CORRADO. We can attempt to supply that for the record, yes.
We have to talk to the Commission and some of the lawyers. But to
answer the question you are asking, we really have to get the court
decisions over whatever number of years you would like.
Mr. HUBBARD. Near the bottom of page 4 of your statement,
Ernie, you state,
Since the Panama Canal pilot is in complete control of the vessel during transit,
we do not see any basis for shielding the Commission from liability as is accom-
plished by the 1979 Act.
May we infer from this that if the pilots were made only adviso-
ry to the vessel master, that you would not object to the current
system?