Key Bridge struck

[Oerets]

Whatever happens this time and who ends up paying. It will be a safe bet will not be the responsible parties.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Whatever happens this time and who ends up paying. It will be a safe bet will not be the responsible parties.

Today the company that owns the ship already made a statement to the effect that they are not liable for the bridge damage (means they blame everyone else) and that any liability will be capped at around $48 Million, assume its the policy limit. Its just a standard statement, does not mean anything.

I expect that the families of the dead workers will be first in line and that $48 Million will be gone in no time at all. But the damages to the bridge will be negotiated quietly between the city, Feds and the ship's owners and contractors, but will not approach anywhere near the cost of rebuilding the bridge.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Today the company that owns the ship already made a statement to the effect that they are not liable for the bridge damage (means they blame everyone else) and that any liability will be capped at around $48 Million, assume its the policy limit. Its just a standard statement, does not mean anything.

I guess their next step is blaming the bridge for damaging their ship?

[Rajoo]

The key points are:

Maritime law allows shipowners to limit their liability to the post-casualty value of the vessel and its cargo, regardless of the extent of damages or injuries.
This principle of limitation of liability has long been part of maritime law, dating back to before the modern corporation and insurance industry.
The rationale is to encourage investment and competitiveness in the shipping industry by protecting owners from unlimited liability.
However, owners cannot limit liability if the incident was due to their own "privity or knowledge" of negligence or unseaworthiness.
The limitation of liability is internationally recognized through conventions like the 1957 Brussels Convention, which requires owners to establish a single limitation fund that all claimants are paid from.

So in summary, yes, maritime law internationally recognizes the ability of shipowners to limit their liability to the value of the vessel and cargo, with some exceptions. This is a longstanding principle in this area of law.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Mar...Q_.i7fX.F6c2Ig

[donquixote99]

Interesting. Hadn't known about that protection for shipowners. Real lucky for them in this case....

[donquixote99]

The fascist caucus is weighing in, with demands before funding replacement. They want LNG projects to go forward despite global climate impact. They want 'burdensome regulations' removed for the bridge project--mainly aimed at letting non-union contractors get the work I figure. And they want the cost totally offset by budget cuts elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how Johnson plays this in this election year. If he lets a clean bill be voted on, it will pass.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ort-rcna146606