Owners of ship that collapsed Baltimore bridge seek to limit liability

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Scripps News/AP

Posted: 4:30 p.m. EDT Apr 1, 2024


Attorneys for the company behind the Dali container ship that caused the Key Bridge's collapse last week are looking to get ahead of future lawsuits.

The catastrophic incident left six construction workers dead and two others injured. It also severely impacted local workers and the economy, as operations at the Port of Baltimore remain indefinitely suspended.

In a federal court filing Monday, the ship's owners and operators, Grace Ocean Private Limited and Synergy Marine PTE, denied any fault or neglect.

"The [bridge collapse] was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of [ship owner & operator], the Vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts [ship owner & operator] may be responsible," the filing reads. "Alternatively, if any such faults caused or contributed to the [bridge collapse], or to any loss or damage arising out of the [bridge collapse], which is denied, such faults were occasioned and occurred without [ship owner & operator] privity or knowledge."

Read more: https://scrippsnews.com/stories/owners-of-ship-that-collapsed-baltimore-bridge-seek-to-limit-liability/

---

Link to court filing (PDF) - https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/24-941-Motion%26Attachments.pdf

Actually heard this on the radio (news) today.

[Phoenix61]

1. Guess they haven't seen the video. Lots of luck with that. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

28. I watched a video that maritime law limits losses, also the Harbor Pilot was in command.

Losses are limited to prevent a single accident from taking out an entire shipping company.

If I remember correctly, it would be capped somewhere in the tens of millions.
I think it was a second-hand ship, which would lower the cost even more.

Also, while technically the ship's captain could override the Harbor Pilot, it is rarely done.

===

I can't find the video I watched.

[Phoenix61]

29. I think the biggest issue is the ship lost all power.

They are going to be all over the maintenance logs. If they find anything that indicates the ship wasn’t properly maintained they are going to have a huge problem.

[cloudbase]

38. The ship's master does not relinquish command to the pilot.

The pilot is there in an advisory capacity only. The only exception is the Panama Canal transit.

[Fullduplexxx]

2. You know that bridge we knocked down. Well, that was totally not our fault.

[Igel]

9. If you're doing the speed limit when it's wet and you lose control and

strike another car, you did that.

You're totally responsible. Even if it's also found that you experienced a tire blow-out.

It's for the court to decide. The video isn't probative. Don't know what evidence they have and you know that entire "judge not" BS? Or the t-shirts common 6 or 8 years ago, "Don't judge me" (replaced by the stronger, more powerful, "F**k yeah, I judge others" t-shirts of today ... jus' kiddin' ... sort of)?

I can have an opinion based on my ignorance of the democratically enacted laws and the facts of the case as permitted by the laws enacted by our democracy. But I know that's just my opinion and that our democracy has decided the law and if I want to uphold our democracy I get to either support the law--and our democracy--or work to use the means available in our democracy to change the law. But until then, the law is the law.

Now, in the end I may disagree with the Court's interpretation of the law, but I suspect that's more than a few minutes away.

[TomSlick]

20. Maybe not.

The law in Arkansas is that the fact that an accident occurred is not evidence of negligence by anyone.

For example, I have won a blow-out case for the defendant. Without evidence that the driver knew or should have known that a tire was likely to fail, there is no negligence if a tire blows out and results in an accident - at least in Arkansas.

I took an admiralty law course back in the law school. The only thing I remember for sure is that admiralty law is a world of its own.

[3Hotdogs]

25. I wrote that sentence down. Now, I can cancel my car insurance.

I won't need it anymore. If I get into an accident, I'll just say, I didn't do nuthin' wrong.

[doc03]

3. Meanwhile the Republicans want to fight it in court for years rather than

the government getting involved.

[Aristus]

4. "Hey, Hey, HEY! Let's not rush to judgement here! Just because our boat hit the bridge's support!

A lot of people are saying it was caused by diversity! What's that? I said 'Diversity'! That's got to count for something, right? Right?..."

[Igel]

10. That's pretty much a non-starter.

And dismissed as such.

Now, while the company says the pilot and apprentice were US citizens, that's a bit cagey. Still, in the absence of information, all I have is an absence of information. (I've already heard too many arguments ex silencio on NPR this afternoon. It's apparently the featured fallacy of the day--we don't know if it was there, so obviously it couldn't have been. Said the omniscient deific host.)

[Aussie105]

5. Leaving berth

while there were known problems because you were in a hurry to get on the way?

Definitely not your fault. Sure, nice try!

But if shipping lines want to run 'unroadworthy' ships, better make entry and departure by tugboats compulsory.

[Igel]

12. Centuries ago, it seems,

I was a minor with my parents heading to my brother's marriage in a different state. We were stuck at BWI but due at the wedding dinner. My parents paid for the dinner and they were the hosts.

Got to the airport early. And waited. A mechanical fault was detected. The part was flown in. New departure time, hours later. You're a HS freshman and have to sit in a seat not for 45 minutes but for 4 hours with a water fountain and urinal as your sources of entertainment in 1973.

Cheers when the announcement said the part arrived. Then stares as it was announced that, the part replaced, apparently either it wasn't *that* part or at least two parts failed. Another part would arrive. The cheers when that part's arrival was announced were less muted. We were sullen. "Yeah, right. Whatever. Prove it." But it passed inspection and we were airborne.

We went straight from the airport the "Happy Hunter" (the restaurant in an unnamed city very much not in Maryland and utterly infested with > 5000 mosquitos per cubic meter and at least 999% humidity ... in late September) mid-delayed-main course.

Now, had we crashed, you know, the plane passed inspection. If that wasn't sufficient, I'd still be sitting in that damned waiting area in BWI 50+ years later.

Note: "while there were known problems because you were in a hurry to get on the way" is an assumption. I like knowing my assumptions and being explicit about them--because if I know them or am ignorant of them, I don't know what they are, it doesn't matter--I utterly own them and I don't like condemning others, saying, "Yeah, whatever, I'm good" after being judgmental, and moving on to the next thing. I take my judgmentalism seriously. And when it comes to the Balto. harbor regs, I don't know what the inspection regime is--tough, moderate, weak, or absent, so I'm agnostic. And proselytize merited agnosticism.

[slightlv]

23. That's immediately what I thought of, Aussie!

They'd already been dinged because of prior problems they didn't fix before leaving port... exactly the same type of problem, among others. That's negligence, no matter how you want to plead, AFAIK. But I'm not a lawyer.

[Jilly_in_VA]

6. Because of course they do

It's not their fault, after all. It's the guy driving the ship!

[GB_RN]

21. Sounds Familiar

Like an oil spill in Alaska back in the ‘80s involving a ship called the EXXON Valdez…

[slightlv]

24. And the Gulf of Mexico that was basically destroyed...

by both the oil AND the Corexit they used to "eat" the oil. To this day, I will no longer eat Gulf shrimp. I have no way of knowing how much toxins they've ingested thanks to the corexit. And I used to love shrimp.

[Eugene]

7. Of course they did.

We intend to prove this isn't what it looks like.
Maybe that bridge fell down spontaneously.

[OAITW r.2.0]

8. Impound ship's maintance records immediately.

I suspect that ship owners were shorting maintenance to avoid the hit to their bottom line. Criminal charges could be in order.

[Igel]

14. Probably copies are already in the NTSB's hands.

No need to worry about the originals. That would just slow things down.

[sarisataka]

11. It is about as surprising of news

As the prediction the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. They deny fault because everyone denies fault, obviously.

The far more important factor from their point of view is the limit of liability to the value of the ship. If this stays in the news long enough people are going to learn some very old and interesting quarks of maritime law.

Biden's announcement that the government will pay for the rebuild is because he is aware 1)The case will take years to settle and 2) even if the ship owners are found 100% liable they will only have to pay a fraction of the cost. (Much less than 1%)

[former9thward]

27. The state of Maryland insured the bridge.

Biden's comments aside, the federal government will pay very little. It is a fight between the various insurance companies. The law cited in the OP was the same law the owners of the Titanic used to escape many liability claims.

[BootinUp]

30. Ships like this behemoth should not be allowed to operate in poor (unsafe) condition.

[Elessar Zappa]

32. Sounds like the federal government needs to take a fresh look at current maritime law and update it or overhaul it.

[sarisataka]

41. The Federal government has limited ability to make changes

as it is mostly comprised of centuries worth of international treaties, laws and agreements.

Perhaps they could make some changes which apply to US territorial waters, but I do not know if they can change liability limitations. That might require international action.

[Aussie105]

13. I imagine the ship's owners would have exerted pressure down the line to get moving.

Any 'yeah but!' complaints for under the decks would have been ignored.

And insurance - the ship would have insurance for events out at sea, like containers falling off or the whole lot sinking.
But knocking down a bridge? Probably not.

Passageway needs to be cleared to allow shipping, but this particular line needs to be banned from using the port.

[Chainfire]

15. It is just a coincidence that the bridge collapsed after the ship took out part of the supporting structure.

"That is our story and we are sticking to it."

[sanatanadharma]

16. It is the old 'nobody told me' defense. The board room wasn't told the' electric' details, so no guilt

"Alternatively, if any such faults caused or contributed to the [bridge collapse], or to any loss or damage arising out of the [bridge collapse], which is denied, such faults were occasioned and occurred without [ship owner & operator] privity or knowledge."
(My bold and underline)

[gfwzig]

17. federal maritime law states that the total payout for damages cannot exceed the value of the ship.

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2024, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

meaning that they will lose the value of the ship (((covered by insurance because it was piloted by harbor masters)))) but not the cargo. thus they will get away scot-free and the stockholders will not lose a red cent. Also since the harbor masters were in control they cannot be held criminally liable for any malfunction that should have been anticipated by the harbor masters (pilot) who were in total control and should have anticipated the possibility of engine/steering failure... the ship runs on bunker fuel, the stuff left over after all the usable parts of crude oil have been removed, it is notoriously hard to use, and must even be pre-heated to be thinned enough to pump it into the power plant , so, any talk of "bad fuel" is hogwash, bunker fuel ---IS BAD FUEL --- that cannot be used for anything else....

[gladium et scutum]

22. Dali was diesel powered

she did not have boilers or geared turbines..

[gfwzig]

31. marine diesels use bunker fuel,,, she may have been using MGO in port,, and could have illegally switched to bunker

[cstanleytech]

47. What's the maximum fine then for illegally switching to that fuel?

If there isn't one maybe using the fine could get around that marine time law mentioned.

[cstanleytech]

46. I checked that out and while that's true unfortunately but it doesn't protect them from wrongful death.

So, I suspect that the owners are still going to end up paying a lot of money to the victims families and I am hoping that it's one hell of a lot.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. From the Trump playbook. Deny any wrong before the investigative results are in.

[Ms. Toad]

45. The filing is under a provision of Maritime law which caps damages to the value of the vessel,

And had deadlines for filing the claim to a limitation of liability.

Nothing to do with the Trump playbook.

[keithbvadu2]

19. Privity... I had to look it up.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=privity&form=ANNTH1&refig=d08b279aa267492bb5c5a6c0cfec9076&pc=U531

[no_hypocrisy]

26. At best, negligence with cause and effect.

At worst, res ipsa loquitor.

Tort of Res Ipsa Loquitor:
Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself&quot is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

Elements:
The injury is of the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence or is uncommon in the course and nature of said act.
The injury is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.
The injury-causing accident is not by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
The defendant's non-negligent explanation does not completely explain plaintiff's injury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur#References

[tornado34jh]

33. Well, I think we first off have to know what caused the ship to lose power

Was there a mechanical/electrical issue, pilot/captain error? The ship was registered to Singapore, and at the time, it was heading for Colombo, Sri Lanka. There were two American harbor pilots on board. Now I am not a bridge engineer, but as I understand it, the bridge was a steel arch continuous through truss bridge. So by design, if a support pier is gone, the force gets transferred over to the other spans, and they just can't handle that weight/force. But then again, the piers were only designed for certain loads. A small/medium boat, yeah, it could probably handle a collision, but a massive container ship? No dice. I had read about the 1980 Sunshine Skywalk Bridge, which had different conditions, but again resulted with a heavy ship colliding with a support pier and the bridge collapsing.

[jaxexpat]

34. That bridge pulled out in front of me and I had the green light and it didn't signal properly either.

It's only half my fault, after all the bridge damaged me too.

But on a more serious note........I suspect the support structures of the piers which held the bridges spans were designed and built in a time before ships in Baltimore harbor ever approached the mass of existing cargo/container carriers. I'll wager those piers were designed to withstand the impact of stray ships crashing into them without toppling the whole span into the harbor. That is, stray ships of that era.

So, who screwed up? Well, as usual, it boils down to an intentional lack of imagination. The technology to strengthen those piers is available but implementation is expensive. That is the main factor. Who would/should pay for it? Every bridge support pier in every harbor which is adjacent to shipping lanes is subject to destruction by heavy and powerful ships.

Harbors around the world have widened and deepened their ship channels to accommodate larger ships. Widening navigable channels adjacent to existing bridge piers will impact (no pun intended) the likelihood of crashes. It's gonna happen again and again.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. "It's gonna happen again and again."

It just happened in Oklahoma on the Arkansas River this past Saturday - https://apnews.com/article/barge-bridge-hit-oklahoma-reopened-262f5725223e9d0633e97fa04ec55c65

[jaxexpat]

36. Wow, I didn't know my own prescience. Wait, I feel another prediction coming on,......look east to see a sun rise.

This is easy!

[BumRushDaShow]

37. That means

your Magic 8-ball is in good working order!

[Emile]

39. Bankruptcy next action.

[cstanleytech]

40. Your ship, your fault.

[republianmushroom]

42. Think they are going to have a tough time convincing a jury it wasn't their ships fault

that the bridge collapsed.

[EX500rider]

43. 1851 Maritime Law

The companies filed under a pre-Civil War provision of an 1851 maritime law that allows them to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after a casualty.


https://fortune.com/2024/04/01/baltimore-francis-scott-key-bridge-liability-cap-44-million-singapore/

[Elessar Zappa]

44. That's a stupid law.

It should be revisited for future incidents.