News @lemmy.world Stopthatgirl7 @lemmy.world 3 mo. ago

Owner of ship that destroyed Key Bridge files limitation of liability action in federal court - Maryland Daily Record

thedailyrecord.com Owner of ship that destroyed Baltimore's Key Bridge asks to cap liability at $43M - Maryland Daily Record

The owner of the ship that toppled Baltimore's Key Bridge appears to be seeking to cap the amount of damages that the company can be forced to pay.

The owner of the ship that toppled Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge appears to be seeking to cap the amount of damages that the company can be forced to pay following the deadly crash.

The Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd. indicated it will file a “limitation of liability” action in federal court Monday, invoking a little-known statute used in maritime law.

The filing itself is not yet available, but a docket in U.S. District Court in Maryland showed the company has initiated an action involving limitation of liability, a key move that maritime lawyers saidwould be likely to take place soon after the disaster.

30 comments

Of course! Socialize the losses, privatize the gains...

It's the American Way!
- It’s the ~~American~~ Singapore-based Way!
  Our Gov. has for many years been so against the US Workers that they actively protect foreign business' interests in their effort to appease the obscenely wealthy. So I have no doubt it shall still end up with the US Taxpayers footing the bill. I'll wait to be shocked, but not that shocked, until a court rules that the City owes for damages to the ship.
- OK, you're right and I really hate that paradigm. But didn't I hear something like these boats being led out of the bay are under the control of local crew (not company crew) until they get to open water? Also something about doing this without a tug escort? I wonder if there is more to this story other than yet another bad corporate actor.
  
  The ship had 2 local harbor pilots (which are fairly mandatory worldwide as harbors are unique).
  
  As far as no tug escort my guess is that's to cut down on costs, either to the shipping companies and/or the harbor ... and it's up to the harbor if a tug is mandatory or not.
- The revolution will be live-streamed.
- Legal stuff can easily be made to take decades. Meanwhile there's billions of losses per year that the bridge is down. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's not good for that local economy to wait for courts to decide on things.
- Not a US boat
  
  No but it's US laws they're using which is kind of the point. Our system is set up that way.
I’m sure the cost is already much higher than they could afford. Between the bridge itself, the cost of diverting shipping and the economic impact of said diversion.
- I’m sure the cost is already much higher than they could afford.
  
  That's what insurance is supposed to be for, assuming they had it. Getting the insurance company to actually pay out, that's a different story entirely.
  
  Probably the insurance Co telling them to make the filing.
- Plus loss of human life.
- Then they get to liquidate some assets to pay for the replacement costs.
  
  The crew looks like they went to the extreme to avoid the collision, contacting as many authorities as possible to try to save human lives. I feel bad for them because they did everything possible and it still ended in a disaster.
  
  It wasn’t their fault the boat was ill maintained and lost power at a critical moment. The company can bear the cost.
- Don't forget the workers lost as well. Not sure if that would have to go through different civil suits.
  
  Don’t forget the workers lost as well. Not sure if that would have to go through different civil suits.
  
  According to my reading of the article, assuming the limit is upheld, the worker's families would be getting the money that comes out of this. The bridge and port would be the losers.
Yeah we crashed into that bridge, but we aren’t paying for it.
- The owner doesn't have to be the operator.
  
  They did the hiring and should have done the due diligence. If corporations want to be considered people than they can't really claim that their limbs were the ones responsible for breaking something, not them.
  
  An example from my childhood: two security guards at work at the Aryan Nation compound beat the shit out of a minority. The Aryan Nation was found liable and their property was seized to cover their expenses and it was used for fire fighting practice.
Why is that even a thing again exactly?
I said this exact thing was going to happen like three days ago and yall downvoted me to hell
- I said this exact thing was going to happen like three days ago and yall downvoted me to hell
  
  Because you called it out here I wanted to see what you said so I went back through your comments to find out. Unless you can point out something from your prior posts to suggest otherwise, I'm not seeing where you said this exact thing would happen.
  
  Further, your posts I saw on the topic that look like they got downvoted to hell so far are still wrong.
  
  It looks like others in those threads are still right against the posts I saw of yours on the topic. From my reading the downvotes were justified.
  
  My guy, if you think that the "decision" of this filing wasn't made the second that the crash happened, I don't know what to tell you. The US government exists to protect the wealthy (around the globe, as long as they play nice), and any damage done by the wealthy, private organizations is subsidized with public funds.
  
  I would love to be proven wrong.
- No you didn't.
- From reading it back it seems like you took the quote of the WH saying they'd front the cost as them saying they'd pay for it. Maybe I'm missing something though
- Same thing. Lemmy can be a pretty brainless place sometimes.

You've viewed 30 comments.