mations in the courtroom remains one of Two cases in which the authors rep- the ship could not have been responsible would be more accurate than the crew’s the most controversial issues in the law resented the ship owners illustrate the for sinking the ? shing vessel, resulting in observations. This decision was af-of evidence. While some courts accept effectiveness of electronic navigation a jury verdict in the ship owner’s favor. ? rmed on appeal.computer animations without question, evidence. In one case the crew of a com- In the second case, while proceeding The role of electronic data in the reso-particularly trials to the judge with no mercial ? shing vessel alleged that a ship outbound from New York harbor in- lution of maritime cases is now ? rmly jury, others are wary that computer ani- inbound to New York in dense fog col- tending to anchor in Gravesend, the port established. It therefore is important for mations are more likely to pervert the lided with and sunk the ? shing vessel. anchor of a bulk carrier prematurely de- vessel operators and their crews to un-fact-? nding process than they are to en- The ? shing vessel crew subsequently ployed. When the anchor was winched derstand how to preserve this important hance it. Many critics are skeptical that identi? ed the ship from photographs. up a cable was caught on one of the an- evidence in a manner that ensures its ad-the purported desire to help fact-? nders The ship’s crew denied that their ship chor’s ? ukes. That cable was later al- missibility in any subsequent legal pro-understand evidence is nothing more was in collision and testi? ed that at or leged to be a ? ber optics cable that ran ceedings.than an excuse to dazzle them with tech- before the time of alleged collision no from Staten Island to Brooklyn. The nological “whiz-bang” and parapherna- targets appeared on the ship’s ARPA ra- cable owner claimed that it laid the cable lia used to “Disney-up” the evidence. dar. The ship’s ECDIS was interfaced pursuant to an Army Corps of Engineers Electronic navigation evidence, how- with the ARPA and was equipped with a permit within a charted cable area that The Authorsever, is mostly immune from these memory. Fortunately the ECDIS memo- crosses the Verrazano Narrows and that criticisms. If properly preserved and au- ry was preserved. This evidence estab- the ship had negligently dropped her Alan Weigel is an Of Counsel at Blank thenticated, it is generally not simply a lished two crucial facts. The ? rst was to anchor in that cable area. However, the Rome Maritime and concentrates his computer “animation” in the sense that con? rm that no radar targets that could ship’s SVDR recording of the ECDIS practice in the area of commercial and it attempts to recreate what a witness have been the ? shing vessel appeared and GPS data, and its recording of the insurance litigation and arbitration, with thinks he remembers seeing or what an anywhere near the ship’s track. The sec- sound of the anchor chain running out particular emphasis on the maritime in-expert believes has occurred, but rather ond was that the ship’s track at all times (marking the exact time of the anchor dustry. the actual data recorded on board the was two miles or more away from any release), established that the anchor was vessel at the time of the accident and, of the several reported positions of the released at a position some 70 yards out-Richard Singleton is a Partner at Blank thus, a true visual representation of what ? shing vessel. Still shots of the ECDIS side of the charted cable area. The judge Rome Maritime and concentrates his the witness experienced. Properly pre- and a playback of the ECDIS display in relied on this data to dismiss the cable practices in the areas of commercial sented, electronic navigation evidence accelerated time (real time would have owner’s claim. Signi? cantly the court law, litigation, and arbitration with par-can be an extremely powerful persuasive been too time-consuming) were pre- also denied the cable owner’s request ticular emphasis on the maritime indus-tool that can make the difference be- sented to the jury. This evidence was for depositions of the master and crew, try. He has over 20 years’ experience.tween winning and losing a case. instrumental in convincing the jury that ? nding that the recorded electronic data www.marinelink.com 17MR #7 (10-17).indd 17 MR #7 (10-17).indd 17 6/30/2014 10:30:59 AM6/30/2014 10:30:59 AM