A recent lawsuit was filed by the family of Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a renowned French explorer who perished in the Titan submersible disaster and has sparked renewed attention to the tragic incident. Nargeolet, who was among five people aboard the OceanGate-operated submersible when it imploded during a deep-sea expedition to the Titanic wreck in June 2023, was known for his extensive experience with Titanic dives.
The lawsuit, filed in King County, Washington, seeks $50 million in damages from OceanGate, alleging gross negligence. The family claims that the crew experienced "terror and mental anguish" before the vessel's catastrophic failure, pointing to evidence that the Titan "dropped weights" mid-dive—a sign that the crew attempted to abort the mission. The suit argues that the crew was aware of the impending disaster and suffered intense psychological distress as the submersible descended to its doom.
The legal action also underscores concerns about OceanGate's practices, including accusations that the company concealed critical information about the sub's safety and durability from the crew, despite warnings from industry experts years earlier about the potential risks associated with the experimental design of the Titan.
This case highlights the ongoing debate over accountability in extreme adventure tourism, particularly in situations where the safety of participants may be compromised by cutting-edge, yet unproven, technologies.
To succeed in their lawsuit against OceanGate, the survivors and the family of Mr. Nargeolet would need to establish several key elements under the law, particularly since the claim centers on gross negligence and wrongful death.
The plaintiffs must first establish that OceanGate owed a duty of care to Nargeolet and the other crew members. Given that OceanGate operated the submersible and facilitated the expedition, it had a legal obligation to protect those on board. This duty would include providing a vessel that was structurally sound and capable of withstanding the pressures encountered during deep-sea dives.
Once duty is established, the plaintiffs must prove that OceanGate breached this duty. The lawsuit argues that the company failed to disclose critical safety flaws in the Titan submersible and ignored industry warnings about the risks associated with its experimental design. This breach would involve showing that OceanGate did not meet the standard of care expected of a company in its position, leading to the fatal incident.
Next, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct link between OceanGate’s breach of duty and the deaths of the crew members. This could involve proving that the structural failures of the Titan, which were allegedly known but not properly addressed by OceanGate, were the proximate cause of the implosion that resulted in the deaths. The lawsuit claims that the crew was aware of the vessel’s failure during the dive, which contributed to their mental anguish before the implosion.
Lastly, the plaintiffs need to quantify the damages suffered as a result of OceanGate’s alleged negligence. This would include both the physical deaths of the crew members and the emotional distress they and their survivors experienced before their deaths. The $50 million claim is likely reflective of both compensatory damages (for the loss of life and suffering) and possibly punitive damages, intended to penalize OceanGate for gross negligence.
Successfully proving these elements would be critical for the plaintiffs to win their case. They would need to present compelling evidence, including expert testimony on the submersible's design flaws and the crew’s awareness of the impending disaster, to persuade the court of OceanGate’s liability.
The legal releases that the victims likely signed before embarking on the Titan submersible journey could significantly impact the outcome of the lawsuit. These releases likely included clauses that waived the participants' right to sue for personal injury or death, acknowledging the risks involved in such an extreme and experimental expedition. The survivors will attack the validity of the releases on multiple fronts.
WRITTEN BY
Phil Griffis obtained his first jury verdict in 1990, when he convinced a jury that a customer’s fall at his client’s store did not cause the customer’s aspiration pneumonia and stroke. In the years since he has continued to win in courtrooms across the State of Texas. Contact our firm for assistance with your legal matter.