Under foreign registries laws, a cruise liner’s flag determines what country has jurisdiction. Therefore, in this case, the liner having been registered as a Liberian ship and happens to fly a Liberian flag during the time of the crime, means that the ship is still governed by Liberia maritime law despite the happenings’ off the American coast. However, an American court could still exercise jurisdiction over the ship since the incidence occurred on its waters. If the company decides to bring into effect the private law, then the law only addresses issues such as; employer-employee relations and the cargo-contract obligations of the ship, since the Lowell’s had purchased its tickets. Contrary to this, should Mr. Lowell recover and sue the company himself, the public law ramification spells out that the incidence was marked by multiple crimes, labor, customs, negligence and contractual to mention a few, against him on bound a vessel under the jurisdiction of Liberia. On her part, Mrs. Lowell (as discussed below) being considered under Liberian Customary Law as her husband’s property would be handled as a private law case while the public law may not be that influential on her.
Since the maritime laws state that companies are liable for the performance of their private fleet, should the crime have taken place in the U.S. mainland, Mrs. Lowell can sue the company given that under the United States Law, she would not be judged as being her husband’s. On suing the company to the Bahamas, she has a strong law suit against us; example the company in this case failed to honor the ship’s contract. Besides, the huge evidenced criminalized activities committed by the employees on the cruise ship, could be smoothly executed under the public law since the company failed to secure ethically competent employees with whose background they were ignorant of. Nonetheless, should the cruise have been flying an American flag, the same laws could have been used.
Given that after her return to Miami, Mrs. Lowell's attorney faxed my company threatening to sue it for negligent supervision, training and hiring of employees; breach of contract; infliction of emotional distress; assault; battery; theft; among other issues unless the company tendered the sum of $12.5 million within 15 business days. Her case presents disputed challenges because under the Liberian law, a woman’s right to own property is limited. Mrs. Lowell therefore, has no power to sue the company on behalf of her husband, because as the law explicitly states; a wife is the property of the husband. Therefore she has no obligations to sue or claim any damages for his injuries: this explains why the public and private law in the case have no meaning and the company not liable to pay any damages. The law also stipulates that any property within the possession of the wife is deemed to be the sole property of the husband. Therefore, her attorney must be furnished with more information about the Liberian law and made to comprehend that he has no legal ground to threaten the company in such manner. For example, Jallah (Oct. 17, 2007) in the Liberian laws, states that any Liberian woman married under Customary Law is considered part of the property of her husband, while only women married under the common law system are allowed to inherit from their deceased husbands. Further, as the Liberian private law demand, since Mrs. Lowell is an ordinary citizen and news about her affairs are not worthy of publication to public at large, her privacy rights are therefore said not to have been infringed. As such, there is no implication for our company both from the point of public or private law to compensate her, since the incident described did not happen on the United States soil or its mainland, thus Liberian local laws are applicable.
In terms line to develop policies for future criminal incidents and bearing in mind that victims of criminal activities have a right to bail for justice, the first basic move that my logistics company will take is to cooperate with Mrs. Lowell and the law enforcement organ to ensure that she receives justice for her losses from crimes mentioned above, negligent supervision, training, and hiring of employees; breach of contract; infliction of emotional distress; assault; battery; theft. This is important because, besides helping the victims off the edge of stigma, a $12.5 million dollar fee is a way too large a lump sum for our company given that should news about the incidence spread, the company’s dignity at home and abroad would be at stake. Moreover, since the fate of her husband is unpredictable, our compensatory plan for her therefore we have to present interests of both partners. Given the ramification of the case and its dynamic nature, a quick move by the company to settle its scores with the Lowell’s could not have come at better a time when her attorney may attempt to alter the flag of convenience rules. For instance a major navigation used the attorneys is to “bring up the sentimental connection between an inanimate object and a country that the owner is not a citizen of “(Shubber, 1973). Though the Liberian laws seem convenient when dealing with international maritime legal matters when compared to the tedious and burdensome American laws, my company will provide comprehensive training to its entire staff, provide more security to its cruise and her customers, and ensure that such occurrences are not repeated plus thoroughly checking the background of all her employees. This way, future crimes will be better cubed and stopped on time.