The ship from where the Lowell couple was attacked was sailing between the waters of the U. S and those that belong to the international community. According to a policy developed by the board in charge of ensuring that ships are not involved in any form of misconduct states that any ship whose destination is in any port of the United States of America or is having on board American citizens will be answerable to the relevant authorities if involved in any kind of misconduct. The Lowell couple has American citizenship and for that reason they have a cause of action against the company.
Another very important concept that must be clearly understood in deciding where liability lies is the very pace where the contract between the passengers and the management of the ship was made. (Bamforth, 2003) The court will usually look at various factors in order to determine if the law of United States will apply to a vessel that flies the flag of another country. Usually the main factor of consideration by the court is the general law of application so that if the contract between the passengers and the shipping company was made in the U.
S it then means that the voyage began in the U. S. In addition if there is a citizen of the U. S who is involved then automatically the United States law will apply notwithstanding the fact that the flag of convenience that the vessel is flying belongs to another country. Under private law, businesses have the liberty to rely on such codes of ethics like the ICCL during international transactions. And it is under this provision that the law of United States will be applied to govern this particular transaction.
Cruise lines are known to be notorious of dilly dallying with the intention of passing time so that the passengers are not able to sue for lapse of time. In this case if the suit by the Lowell couple is not brought to court then they will have lost the opportunity to sue and the ship company will go scot-free. However if the couple is able to bring to court the suit within a period of one year then The DWI Company will have a case to answer on various issues. To begin with they may be charged with negligence for having hired workers or employees who could not be trusted and who posed a danger or threat to the passengers on board.
In addition the couple will cite the emotional and mental distress, assault and theft. Even though the company may use the defense that every passenger is required to take care of their belongings it will still not be easy to use this defense considering that the people responsible were their own employees. As already mentioned earlier in the discussion the case of DMI is a little complex considering that the ship was flying a flag of a country where it was not registered.
However this issue will be dealt with using the international law standards to enable the court reach a decision. In order to avoid such incidents in future DMI ought to ensure that they hire professional employees who observe ethics.
Reference: Bamforth, N. (2003). Public Law in a Multi-layered Constitution. London: Hart Publishing, Birks, P. (1994). Frontiers of Liability. London: Oxford University Press, Chen, J. (1995). From Administrative Authorization to Private Law. New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Griffith, J. (1996). Public Law. California: University of California.