90
Mr. CORRADO. Well, I think we would object, Mr. Chairman.
First, I am not sure you could impose-you could take away this
authority from the pilots; but if you did, I am not sure that would
be a very good system. Of course, if you took away the responsibili-
ty of the pilot and made him advisory, it would obviously alter the
tort aspect of this issue to that extent, but I am not sure that that
system would satisfy us. The Panama Canal is a very unique water-
way. The question is who would be in charge. The master of the
vessel? The master probably is not able to take it through that par-
ticular waterway. I don't think the pilots would agree to that. I
doubt the Commission would agree to it; and I do not think that it
would solve our problem.
Mr. HUBBARD. One last question, Ernie: You state in your testi-
mony that the pilot of the Panama Canal is in complete control of
the vessel during canal transiting. Is it not true that at least
during outside-the-locks transiting, that there are many factors in-
volved in accidents, sometimes over which the pilots really have no
control such as engine trouble, the master not carrying out the
order fast enough, et cetera?
Mr. CORRADO. That is true. That is something else that is
different. We are talking about the negligence of the employee of
the Panama Canal Company. If there is disregard of orders, or if
there are engine difficulties or some malfeasence inherent in the
vessel itself, I think we all agree that that is a different situation.
Those are mitigating factors impacting on the conduct of the em-
ployees of the canal and Commission liability. That is really not
what we are talking about.
Mr. HUBBARD. A question for Mr. Gotimer. Can you tell us what
effect, if any, the Panama Canal Act of 1979 may have had on the
cost of insurance for vessels transiting the canal?
Mr. GOTIMER. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would rather defer on
that question to Mr. Brown, who represents one of the major insur-
ance companies who will testify next.
I think, though, it is too early to say, because the claims that are
currently pending have not been resolved. At the current state, we
do not know whether the Commission agrees in full with our
claims or they agree that the claims are completely unsupportable.
Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Gotimer, why cannot the ships traversing the
canal carry insurance that would protect them against any damage
inside or outside of the lock?
Mr. GOTIMER. Oh, I think they can. Again, I will defer to Mr.
Brown for a more detailed answer, only because you are talking
about insurance; but basically-and what you are talking about,
Mr. Chairman, is the sum and substance, as I understand it, of this
testimony-but what you are talking about is a ship owner buying
insurance and receiving or paying premiums on the basis of his ex-
perience. So the more casualties he has, the more he is going to
pay in terms not only of premiums, but what is called calls. So
what you are effectively doing is making it very much more costly
for him to operate.
Of course, there are major aspects that are not covered: loss of
use, and things like that.
Mr. HUBBARD. Would it be also an argument that the shippers
are already paying for the damages through tolls?