this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
196 points (100.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
3694 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah we crashed into that bridge, but we aren’t paying for it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The owner doesn't have to be the operator.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 109 points 5 months ago (5 children)

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

It's the American Way!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As far as no tug escort

From what I've watched it might not have been safer. This because tugs apparently only can operate such a vessel if it is going really slow. But when it is going slow the vessel is difficult to control. So there's no easy better option.

I'm just repeating what I heard on a video from this channel: https://youtube.com/@wgowshipping

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The tug boats could only be there as an escort in case of an emergency, meaning they're not necessarily attached to the ship.

Leaving them out of the equation is a cost-saving practice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

The tug boats could only be there as an escort in case of an emergency

The vessel was doing 8 knots. It would have been useless and dangerous according to that channel.

Leaving them out of the equation is a cost-saving practice.

If tugs are required then the port should require them instead of relying on shipping companies to do this. You've repeated that it is a cost-saving measure but I've said twice now that it isn't automatically helpful to have them. Further, it really is on the port if tugs should be needed to put that into the minimum requirements.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

The revolution will be live-streamed.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

Plus loss of human life.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget the workers lost as well. Not sure if that would have to go through different civil suits.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Probably the insurance Co telling them to make the filing.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

Those assholes can fuck right off. I'm sick of rich people gambling big and fucking me over win or lose. If every rich person can afford one fewer yacht because they are held accountable when they gamble and lose, they would lose nothing of value.