I’m writing about a case which has become an disappointment for me. Disappointment because the seafarer backpedaled and refused to fight for his rights. To be exact, in the course of trading our client decided to accept the minimum instead of maximum.
So, working aboard the “Myconos Bay” vessel, the seafarer injuries badly his leg, gets the fracture. As a result- iron plate and gruesome consequences of the injury.
The ship owner paid for the treatment during 130 days, and regardless the heaviness of the injury refused to cover further expenses. Then it has been launched a standard procedure- dragging out the trial and endless examinations by the company doctors in order to find a reason not to pay.
But regardless everything said above, it was proposed a sum of $40 000 by the representative of the company, without any argumentation or calculation. After our refusal-50 000 and again without any argumentation. After that $60 000.
It’s clear, that my client was concerned about the trading as well as about everything happening. As a consequence, I was instructed to stop trading because the seafarer was willing to accept the proposed $60 000.
The seafarer is satisfied with the sum. But not me. I’m upset and disappointed. It’s the very case when I could have made the sum twice bigger. But evidently the seafarer was in a difficult financial situation, that influenced his choice. The decision was taken and I have no right to disapprove it.
P.S. As it often happens, the ship owners take advantage of a bad financial state of the seafarers and offer decreased sums of compensation in order to save money. And as the practice shows, the seafarers accept this offer, refusing from the money they should really get.
Protect your rights up to the end, otherwise the seafarers are doomed to get minimum.
The case is closed. I’m dissatisfied, but it’s closed.