98
settle such claims without limit (Public Law 96-70, Title I, 1411 and 1415) and a
party aggrieved by the Commission's determination has a right to bring an action in
court ( 1416). However, for injuries arising outside the locks, we respectfully submit
that the present statute is inadequate in the following respects, which should, in our
view, be remedied in the manner proposed below:
(a) Criticism: The Commission's settlement authority is limited to claims not ex-
ceeding $120,000 ( 1412 and 1415(b)).-Many claims exceed that amount. When, as
is usually the case, parties can agree to settle claims without adjudication or a simi-
lar determination, each party should have the authority necessary to settle, thereby
disposing of the claim expeditiously, efficiently, and at minimal expense.
Remedial proposal.-Delete the limitation of $120,000 in the first sentence of
1412 and delete 1415(b) I altogether.
(b) Criticism: There is no provision for an aggrieved claimant for injuries arising
outside the locks to bring an action in court against the Commission.-For such
claims of $120,000 or less, an aggrieved claimant has no remedy whatever [even by
means of a report to Congress] apart from the Commission's determination (see
1412, 1415(b), and 1416). For claims exceeding $120,000 the Commission, under
1415(b), must submit the claim to Congress in a special report containing the ma-
terial facts and the Commission's recommendation. While this section does provide a
Congressional remedy (the precise form of which is somewhat uncertain), we re-
spectfully submit that it would be better to provide for a judicial remedy (where
Commission and claimant disagree) rather than referring the matter to Congress.
The claims usually arise from collisions or groundings. Proper resolution of the
liabilities of the pilot or others depends on analysis of detailed oral and documen-
tary evidence as to the vessels' navigation in a particular situation, with attendant
technical calculations, evaluation of fact witnesses, and frequent use of expert wit-
nesses. This is a process for which our efforts were created and for which they are
very well suited. In short, it is a judicial function. I believe that Congress, by reason
of both its structure and legislative function, is less suitable for such a task. And, if
I may say so, Congress has more important ways to use its time than deciding the
merits of particular claims.
Remedial proposal.-Provide that, for all injuries outside the locks, an aggrieved
claimant may bring an action in a District Court of the United States.2
(c) Criticism: Section 1414 [Item (6)] bars a claim for any delay due to an investiga-
tion of marine accidents by the Panama Canal authorities.-Such delays can be sub-
stantial, and it is unfair that the Commission should not be held liable when the
accident causing the investigation was due to the negligence of the Commission's
own employee (the Panama Canal pilot). Moreover, Section 1417 provides that a
claim may not be considered unless there has been an investigation by the compe-
tent authorities of the accident before the vessel leaves the Panama Canal. In the
case of smaller claims, a shipowner may be unwilling to delay his vessel due to the
presently unrecoverable expense of delay and may thus be economically forced to
waive an otherwise just claim.
Remedial proposal.-Delete item (6) of 1414.
We understand that payment of claims would be funded by the Panama Canal
tolls, which can be adjusted to provide monies to pay for all liabilities.
We believe that properly drafted legislation to implement the foregoing proposed
amendments to the Panama Canal Act of 1979 would provide an efficient and fair
means of resolving claims of vessels in the Panama Canal and would be in the best
interests of the American merchant marine.
The foregoing proposals would, in effect, restore the equitable procedures for han-
dling Panama Canal claims which existed immediately before the Act of 1979 went
into effect. See: 2 C.Z. Code 291 and 292, [76A Stat. 23] and 294, 295 and 296
[76A Stat. 24] and 297 [76A Stat. 25].
For all of the foregoing reasons we respectfully request that the above-described
proposals be given favorable consideration.
Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
This question we did ask 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? In other words,
were insurance premiums or deductibles adjusted as a result of the
I A similar proposal would be appropriate for 1401, which has a $50,000 limit.
2 A similar proposal might be made with regard to claims under 1401 (see 1401(d) and
1417).