Key bridge in Baltimore collapses after cargo ship crashes into it

[Anonymous]

For those who are interested in this story, 1A had a segment on it and I thought the longshoreman guest was really good--felt like he was straight out of a David Simon series!

https://the1a.org/segments/unpacking-the-aftermath-of-the-baltimore-bridge-disaster/

[Anonymous]

😢

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who are interested in this story, 1A had a segment on it and I thought the longshoreman guest was really good--felt like he was straight out of a David Simon series!

https://the1a.org/segments/unpacking-the-aftermath-of-the-baltimore-bridge-disaster/

Thank you for this recommendation. I agree, the longshoreman was great to hear. And in general, it is such a good interview and coverage of the topic that I now realize how terrible most news coverage is- short and glib.

Anyway, seems like I have a new news source. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is absolutely horrifying! Hoping that the casualties are limited, although it appears some vehicles fell into the river

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/03/key-bridge-in-baltimore-collapses-after-hitting-large-boat/

Video:

I am praying for the families!

[Anonymous]

Apparently divers are having difficulty locating the wreckage, because the polluted harbor water is too murky there.

[Anonymous]

Oh look, another "accident"

[Anonymous]

“Lawyers representing the families of Alejandro Hernandez Fuentes and José Maynor López and sole survivor Julio Cervantes of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse told reporters on Monday, that they plan on filing lawsuits on behalf of the three of the victims of the collapse.

The lawsuit comes as a response to the lawsuit that was filed by the owners of the Dali 6 days after the collapse of the Key Bridge disaster. Owners of the Dali, Grace Ocean Private Limited, filed for protection under the Limited of Liability Act of 1851.

Julio Cervantes, the lone survivor, did not attend the press conference on Monday. Attorneys for Cervantes say their client only survived the crash because his window was manual and he was able to roll down his window and escape.

He was related to some of the victims.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ship owner just filed a limitation of liability action in federal court to cap damages at 43 million. Maritime law allows the ship owner to cap damages at the value of the ship and cargo.

Does maritime law cover damage to bridges and other surface structures? I am a lawyer but this isn't my area.

I only remember this from a federal judge clerkship 35 years ago but yes. Under Maritime law you cannot get more than the value of the ship and the cargo out of the owner. Owner has to file the action but the order will be granted assuming it was a ship and it was in the water. That’s all you get for any damages.

That's the owner. Not the insurance syndicate. The syndicate will be liable to the limits of the policy it underwrote.

Why would someone buy carry insurance for more than their maximum liability?

The victims can claim on their own insurance.

And if the government is any good, it would charge port fees and use that to fund insurance for damages to the harbor and inhabitants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ship owner just filed a limitation of liability action in federal court to cap damages at 43 million. Maritime law allows the ship owner to cap damages at the value of the ship and cargo.

Yes - and this is settled maritime law. Maryland / the Federal government is not getting a penny more than the value of the ship.

Ridiculously, both Maryland senators (both dems) are bloviating about “passing a law !!!” forcing the shipping company to pay.

Their proposal is nonsense.

It is pure theater. And their proposal runs directly against settled maritime law.

You and everyone else should be laughing in their faces over this stupidity.

[Anonymous]

^^^ and of course the insurance $$.

But that money is NOT coming from the ship owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ship owner just filed a limitation of liability action in federal court to cap damages at 43 million. Maritime law allows the ship owner to cap damages at the value of the ship and cargo.

Does maritime law cover damage to bridges and other surface structures? I am a lawyer but this isn't my area.

I only remember this from a federal judge clerkship 35 years ago but yes. Under Maritime law you cannot get more than the value of the ship and the cargo out of the owner. Owner has to file the action but the order will be granted assuming it was a ship and it was in the water. That’s all you get for any damages.

That's the owner. Not the insurance syndicate. The syndicate will be liable to the limits of the policy it underwrote.

Why would someone buy carry insurance for more than their maximum liability?

The victims can claim on their own insurance.

And if the government is any good, it would charge port fees and use that to fund insurance for damages to the harbor and inhabitants.

Because harbor masters are smart. And they will say no insurance no dockage. Banks are smart too. They often require excess coverage as a condition of financing construction.

[Anonymous]

FBI has opened up a criminal investigation - the ship was having electrical problems at the dock, before it left.

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/04/fbi-opens-criminal-investigation-into-baltimore-bridge-collapse-ap-source-says/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ship owner just filed a limitation of liability action in federal court to cap damages at 43 million. Maritime law allows the ship owner to cap damages at the value of the ship and cargo.

Yes - and this is settled maritime law. Maryland / the Federal government is not getting a penny more than the value of the ship.

Ridiculously, both Maryland senators (both dems) are bloviating about “passing a law !!!” forcing the shipping company to pay.

Their proposal is nonsense.

It is pure theater. And their proposal runs directly against settled maritime law.

You and everyone else should be laughing in their faces over this stupidity.

Not to mention that laws are typically not retroactive, and this event already occurred.

[Anonymous]

“The incident is one of hundreds in which massive cargo ships lost propulsion, many near bridges and ports, according to a Washington Post analysis of Coast Guard records.
The findings indicate that the kind of failure that preceded the March 26 Baltimore bridge collapse — the 984-foot Dali is believed to have lost the ability to propel itself forward as it suffered a more widespread power outage — was far from a one-off among the increasingly large cargo ships that routinely sail close to critical infrastructure.
Around Baltimore alone, ships lost propulsion nearly two dozen times in the three years before the tragedy last month, the Post review found — including a November 2021 incident in which a 981-foot container ship lost propulsion for 15 minutes soon after it passed under the Key Bridge. In 2020, a ship the same size as the Dali lost propulsion “in the vicinity of the Bay Bridge” near Annapolis, records show.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/04/16/dead-ships-propulsion-loss/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

No it did not take 3 weeks to replace the short bridge over land. They filled in underneath it. Not really an option in this case.