Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

mdd.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 202 posts

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#31

Post by refulgentis »

KingMob wrote: post #25
buster3000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description "Description Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49…

Pretty sure they're being sarcastic.

Can you explain?

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#32

Post by gnfargbl »

keepamovin wrote: post #17

It’s amazing that the captain of such a large vehicle has through the results of their choices the capability to do so much harm

I agree: we allow people to be in command of thousands of kilos of metal, moving at up to around 30m/s, with really quite minimal training.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#33

Post by Elkekec »

baq wrote: post #4
altacc wrote: post #2

I have wondered what the insurance structure for this is and how liable the vessel's owners and insurers are for damage to public infrastructure. Marine insurance is one of the oldest types of insurance and antique in some respects, with large vessels covered by several underwriting firms. So potentially this is a massive financial hit for multiple companies if there is not a limit on liability.

It's worse (as in, more complex; better for the public, I guess) in that damages will be so big reinsurers are going to take a huge hit; they're probably not used to that.

The exposure of insurance and reinsurance depends on the amount the ship was insured for (and there is a limit to that).

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#34

Post by keepamovin »

gnfargbl wrote: post #32
keepamovin wrote: post #17

It’s amazing that the captain of such a large vehicle has through the results of their choices the capability to do so much harm

I agree: we allow people to be in command of thousands of kilos of metal, moving at up to around 30m/s, with really quite minimal training.

Right? and yet so much focus is put on the operators of US$60 million machines like an F-18 or even commercial aviation pilots… and yet, it seems like their capacity for harm — and, as an aside I’m not saying that it was any human error that caused this, — but the capacity for harm of these aviation operators is, to be honest — 9/11 notwithstanding OK OK bear with me — is, perhaps a little less than the operators of these pervasive ubiquitous Gigantus ships

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#35

Post by sverhagen »

rkrzr wrote: post #21
edgineer wrote: post #13

Rebuild cost: $600m [0] I do hope We the People have zealous advocates. [0] https://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-trade-implications-from...

I suspect that the actual cost to rebuild the bridge will be far higher than that. Initial estimates of large public works projects are virtually always too low, and actual costs can easily be 5-10 times higher. There is a great book about this phenomenon (and how to avoid it) by Brent Flyvbjerg called "How Big Things Get Done".

What helps push down prices of bridges, is to not build them in US.

Or at least, it always strikes me how outlandishly expensive infrastructure projects are in the US (for me coming from Europe, originally).

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#36

Post by michaelt »

swores wrote: post #22

TLDR of the logic behind that sum for anyone else who wondered like I did: They claim the ship's value before the crash as $90M, and that estimated costs for salvage and repairs to the ship are $19.5M and $28M respectively, leaving the value of the ship now at $42.5M (points 15-17 in the main document). They then add the value of pending freight ($1.17M): "Petitioners offer an Interim Stipulation of Value in the amou…

> IANAL nor in the US, so I'm curious whether this is standard law to be able to limit your liability to the (post-crash) value of the ship

46 USC 30523: General limit of liability [1]

"In General.-Except as provided in section 30524 of this title, the liability of the owner of a vessel for any claim, debt, or liability described in subsection (b) shall not exceed the value of the vessel and pending freight.

[...]

liabilities subject to limitation under subsection (a) are those arising from [...] any loss, damage, or injury by collision"

Of course, this is kinda what limited liability is - even if the law didn't say that, the owners of a $90M ship could simply set up a limited company that just owned that one ship and had no other assets, and simply declare bankruptcy if liabilities exceeded the value of the ship.

[1] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&...

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#39

Post by moron4hire »

nashashmi wrote: post #15
gbil wrote: post #3

I stopped reading at point 13 >13. The Casualty was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of Petitioners, the Vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts Petitioners may be responsible. This comes out of nowhere and they base everything on this statement! Amazing

There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).

Why did the engine fail?

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#40

Post by shiroiushi »

rkrzr wrote: post #21
edgineer wrote: post #13

Rebuild cost: $600m [0] I do hope We the People have zealous advocates. [0] https://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-trade-implications-from...

I suspect that the actual cost to rebuild the bridge will be far higher than that. Initial estimates of large public works projects are virtually always too low, and actual costs can easily be 5-10 times higher. There is a great book about this phenomenon (and how to avoid it) by Brent Flyvbjerg called "How Big Things Get Done".

Here in Tokyo, there's a relatively new bridge that's almost exactly the same length as the Key bridge in Baltimore, and was expressly designed to allow large ships to pass underneath:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Gate_Bridge

By my calculations (using the yen cost in the wikipedia article and the JPY/USD conversion at the time), it cost about USD $1.1B, so a bit less than double this estimate.

However, with the way things get done in the US these days, I suspect your 10x prediction is much more likely.

Post reply on HN