Ruling for Weather Service in 3 Deaths to Be Appealed

An attorney representing the families of three fishermen lost at sea in a storm said Wednesday that he will appeal a federal court ruling that threw out their $1.25-million award against the National Weather Service, which had predicted fair weather.

Michael Latti, attorney for the families, said he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which overturned a lower court’s ruling.

He said the 1st Circuit found that the government did not have to exercise “ordinary, reasonable care” when it undertakes a discretionary function, such as issuing weather forecasts. His appeal would be based on a ruling that the government did have to exercise care. That ruling was issued by another federal appeals court in a case concerning the Coast Guard and its placement of buoys.

100-M.P.H. Gusts

Two lobster boats carrying the men had set out Nov. 21, 1980, from Cape Cod for the Georges Bank fishing grounds after the men heard a National Weather Service prediction of fair weather. The next day, the boats encountered gusts up to 100 m.p.h. and seas of 50 feet that capsized one boat and swept a fisherman off the other.

Relatives of three of the four men who died in the storm filed a suit, seeking damages from the government for lost wages and for pain and suffering. The suit alleged that the weather service negligently issued incorrect forecasts because the wind sensor on a weather service buoy in Georges Bank was broken.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in the families’ lawsuit that the government was responsible because the weather service had failed to repair the buoy.

In his ruling Tuesday, however, Appeals Court Judge Bailey Aldrich wrote that “a weather forecast is a classic example of a prediction of indeterminate reliability and a place peculiarly open to debatable decision, including the desirable degree of investment of government funds and other resources.”

He said weather predictions frequently fail and that, if even a small percentage of the people who suffered as a result could sue successfully, the financial burden on the government “would be unlimited and intolerable.”