Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
This is only indirectly about diving, but I thought some might like to read about the 4/16/95 decision concerning salvage rights to the Lusitania. Sorry about the length. The excerpts below seem to be the meat of the ruling, though there still does to be some question about how meaningful it is if Ireland fails to recognize it. I'm not clear on what limits, if any, the "Photographic Agreement" will have on divers who want to take pictures of the wreck or its cargo. I'm not sure it was at issue in this particular case. Any comments from those who have been following more closely? - The Court finds that Cunard did not and could not transfer rights - in the cargo or personal effects. - This Court does not contest or find anything in the present case - inapposite from the ruling by the Queen's Bench; in fact, the Court's - ruling today is entirely consistent with that from the Queen's Bench. - First, the Court notes that the parties involved in the English - litigation did not agree that Bemis had title by conveyance as to the - cargo and personal effects. Furthermore, the Queen's Bench found only - that the Crown had no right to the property as a droit of Admiralty - and that as such no one else had better right to the contents that - Bemis and Macomber, as divers, recovered from the [*15] wreck. - Essentially, it awarded them possessory title. There was no adjudication - as to rights in future artifacts. n6 While keeping in perfect harmony - with the English Court, this Court agrees that all of the contents - awarded to him during the English litigation are his. Furthermore, the - Court finds that based on the law of finds, as set forth below, he has - acquired title to the contents he brought up on the 1993 and 1994 - expeditions. - Aside from the 1982 expedition, Bemis has only recovered one artifact - from his expeditions: one spoon from the cargo. The Court finds that the - title to the one spoon from the cargo that Bemis brought into this district - from his 1993 expedition belongs to Bemis pursuant to the law of finds. - Bemis testified on April 26, 1994 that they gathered that one artifact from - the 1993 expedition. He was in a submarine down on the bottom of the ocean - floor, he spotted a spoon amongst the wreckage and used the submarine's - grasping mechanism to secure it. n9 On March 17, 1995 Bemis testified that - he recently learned that the spoon recovered from the 1993 expedition - originated from the cargo. After making the determination that the cargo - has been abandoned by the previous owners, the Court finds that title in - the spoon vests in Bemis. - In conclusion, the Court finds that [*32] Bemis has not demonstrated - possession of the cargo or personal effects nor has he engaged in the - sustained salvage operations which would justify a grant of exclusive - salvage rights. While he has submitted evidence that he may be in the - position to conduct future operations, the Court is not persuaded that - such a claim currently entitles him to exclusive salvage rights. Therefore, - this Court denies his request for exclusive salvage rights to the cargo - and personal effects. - - Furthermore, the Court denies his request for a salvage award. Pursuant - to the law of finds, Bemis has been allowed to keep all of the contents - that he has salvaged; therefore, an award is not appropriate. - - In addition, on October 9, 1994, the Court ordered an immediate - accounting of what was brought up from the Lusitania by the directors - of FFV. FFV was to place all artifacts in the possession of the United - States Marshal Service. The artifacts placed in the hands of the Marshal - pursuant to the Order are one (1) brass porthole; two (2) octagonal - terra cotta tiles; one (1) brass frame for deck prism diffuser, stamped - "Hayward's Patent London Borough"; and two (2) glass prisms marked "Ward - Brothers". The Court finds [*33] that all of these items came from - the hull of the vessel and in accordance with this opinion are to be - delivered to Mr. Glen Huff, Bemis' counsel of record, who in turn shall - deliver said articles to Mr. Bemis. - VI. CONCLUSION - - The Court concludes that Bemis has established an accurate and - complete chain of title to the vessel, her hull, tackle and - appurtenances. However, the cargo and personal effects of passengers - and crew have not been conveyed by title. - - With respect to the cargo and personal effects of passengers and - crew that have been salvaged from past expeditions, the Court concludes - that those items had been abandoned and that pursuant to the law of - finds lawful title to such contents now vests with those who salvaged - them. The Court distinguishes the already salvaged cargo and personal - effects from the cargo and personal effects still remaining submerged. - The Court concludes that Bemis has not established any exclusive rights - to the cargo and personal effects submerged pursuant to either the law - of finds or salvage law. Therefore, the Court denies Bemis claim to - title to the still submerged cargo and personal effects of the passengers - and crew based on conveyance [*34] or the law of finds. Furthermore, - it denies his request for either a salvage reward or injunctive relief. - - Additionally, the artifacts having been a part of the vessel itself - that were the basis of FFV's claim throughout the November and December - hearings also belong to Bemis based on the above demonstrated chain of - title by conveyance. The United States Marshal Service is directed to - deliver said artifacts to Bemis' counsel for delivery to Bemis. - - IT IS SO ORDERED. - - J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr. - - United States District Judge - - Norfolk, Virginia - April 18, 1995
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]