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.
My guy, if you think that the “decision” of this filing wasn’t made the second that the crash happened, I don’t know what to tell you. The US government exists to protect the wealthy (around the globe, as long as they play nice), and any damage done by the wealthy, private organizations is subsidized with public funds.
I would love to be proven wrong.
Well I suppose I can accommodate you there. In your post in this thread you said “this exact thing was going to happen”. What you said those days ago was that Maersk wouldn’t be held liable. This article is referring to an attempt by the ship owner Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd and not Maersk. Its also not letting Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd off the hook for all of the costs, although that’s what they’d certainly like.
So, no, what you said days ago isn’t exactly what is happening here. Nothing in this article is about liability to whom you said it would be in your other thread, its also not letting anyone off the hook yet.
Thats some nice goalpost moving, but I’m not falling for it. That is irrelevant to what you said prior.
You don’t even seem to understand the ownership structure of this ship. Maersk did not own, operate, crew, or maintain this vessel. It was chartered, which means that Maersk just paid for the cargo space and these other companies (grace ocean private and synergy marine) actually handled all of the potentially problematic aspects behind the incident (poor maintenance, crew factors, whatever it may be).
So not only are you claiming to be right before the dust has settled, but your initial statement was nonsense from the start.