While I certainly think that the skipper holds a great deal of responsibility when it comes to the boat condition and the operation of the vessel, I also believe in a strict sense of self-responsibility.

If this crew member willingly knew that this boat was unseaworthy and agreed to go out on it anyways, then she bears the responsibility of what happens to her during an accident. When it boils down to it, nobody is holding a gun to her head and forcing her to sail on a boat that she (presumably) knew was not safe.

All of the above is based on the premise that the boat was obviously busted before it left the beach. When deception or negligence comes into play, the waters are considerably muddied.

I've seen some pretty derelict vessels "make it" much further than you think they would (hell, look at the cheese scow thread on sailing anarchy!) and when something breaks and hurts someone, it becomes a question of whether or not the owner/skipper's action or inaction led to the events that caused the injury. For example, if I just replaced my crossbeam on my N20, and the next time we go out, it buckles due to a structural defect. In the process of breaking, poor Bailey gets his noggin hit. Should I be held responsible even though I replaced the beam with what I presumed was a structurally sound one? How about if we're sailing along, and hit a submerged object with a daggerboard causing a pitchpole which causes crew injury?