Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse

[Josh]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

[Ernie]

The DALI ship had supposedly filled up its fuel tank before leaving the Port.
How much to fill the tank on a container ship that is only half the size of the world's largest container ships? 1.5 million gallons.
How long does it take a ship like the Dali to consume that much fuel? 24 days.

The DALI was only carrying 4700 containers when it struck the bridge. It could hold 10,000 when full.
The Americas do not accommodate any of the hundreds of larger container ships that are operating in Europe and Asia. The biggest container ships in the world can haul 24,000+ containers.

The largest container ship in the world launched in January.
https://www.logisticsinsider.in/worlds- ... al-voyage/

[Ernie]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

nuanced a bit

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawsui ... 024-03-28/

[Ernie]

ships stuck behind the bridge

https://gcaptain.com/these-are-the-ship ... ey-bridge/

[barnhart]

There are countries around the world where infrastructure is built very fast but I doubt anyone on this thread wants to live there. Bureaucracy is troublesome but it's absence is tyranny. Quite often the layers of balancing interests produce better results than we give credit for. If this seems doubtful, look at bureaucracy free societies.

[ken_sylvania]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

A few more fun facts:

The Limitations of Liability Act that limits shipowners liability to the value of the ship and cargo dates back to 1851

The protections provided by the Act do not apply if the shipowner knew or reasonably could have known about unsafe or unseaworthy conditions on the vessel that caused the accident.

[Josh]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

A few more fun facts:

The Limitations of Liability Act that limits shipowners liability to the value of the ship and cargo dates back to 1851

The protections provided by the Act do not apply if the shipowner knew or reasonably could have known about unsafe or unseaworthy conditions on the vessel that caused the accident.

Note that the shipowner is a relatively small LLC that basically owns the ship itself. So even if the liability is “unlimited”, it just means liability will be limited to the value of the ship itself (plus whatever their insurer decides to pay).

[Ken]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

A few more fun facts:

The Limitations of Liability Act that limits shipowners liability to the value of the ship and cargo dates back to 1851

The protections provided by the Act do not apply if the shipowner knew or reasonably could have known about unsafe or unseaworthy conditions on the vessel that caused the accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is all to do with US law and not international law, correct?

Which suggests to me that going forward, Congress should probably take a look at international shipping and make sure that international ships entering our harbors and waters are properly insured and bonded as the case may be to pay for any disasters that they might cause. Or alternatively set up some sort of shipping disaster fund that all international ships entering US harbors pay into (like the superfund or FDIC) such that there are enough dollars accumulated by the shipping industry to pay for disasters that might occur.

[ken_sylvania]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

A few more fun facts:

The Limitations of Liability Act that limits shipowners liability to the value of the ship and cargo dates back to 1851

The protections provided by the Act do not apply if the shipowner knew or reasonably could have known about unsafe or unseaworthy conditions on the vessel that caused the accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is all to do with US law and not international law, correct?

Which suggests to me that going forward, Congress should probably take a look at international shipping and make sure that international ships entering our harbors and waters are properly insured and bonded as the case may be to pay for any disasters that they might cause. Or alternatively set up some sort of shipping disaster fund that all international ships entering US harbors pay into (like the superfund or FDIC) such that there are enough dollars accumulated by the shipping industry to pay for disasters that might occur.

It's a US Law that was put in place to mirror existing laws in other countries dating back much further. Before 1851 US was a bit of an outlier compared with other major seafaring countries.

An incident like this could actually encourage owners of infrastructure to take steps to better protect vulnerabilities. For instance, if Maryland's insurer ends up paying out $350 Million because of the collapse they might actually take a look at vulnerabilities in other bridges and tunnels and require the state to install protective measures to reduce the chance of catastrophe.

[Josh]

Fun fact:

Ships these days are organised into their own LLC or the foreign equivalent thereof.

Liability for an accident is limited to just the value of the shop and its cargo - after the accident, not before.

Very convenient that a mega giant like Maersk can evade taking basically any responsibility at all.

A few more fun facts:

The Limitations of Liability Act that limits shipowners liability to the value of the ship and cargo dates back to 1851

The protections provided by the Act do not apply if the shipowner knew or reasonably could have known about unsafe or unseaworthy conditions on the vessel that caused the accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is all to do with US law and not international law, correct?

Which suggests to me that going forward, Congress should probably take a look at international shipping and make sure that international ships entering our harbors and waters are properly insured and bonded as the case may be to pay for any disasters that they might cause. Or alternatively set up some sort of shipping disaster fund that all international ships entering US harbors pay into (like the superfund or FDIC) such that there are enough dollars accumulated by the shipping industry to pay for disasters that might occur.

Yes, U.S. law, which is basically a sop to the shipping industry. The requirements on international ships to comply with any kind of environmental laws are also quite lax.

I see no reason this shouldn’t be tightened up substantially. Ships that want to visit American ports should meet our environmental and labour standards. This would increase the cost of imports, but I don’t see anything wrong with that. And this would make American shipping companies more competitive - which would mean more good American mariner jobs.