this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
459 points (96.2% liked)

memes

10309 readers
1987 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter what the bridge is worth, the owners are only liable up to the value of the ship. They're protected by US and International law. The owners will be filing to limit their liability soon if they haven't done so already.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/maritime-law/Limitation-of-liability

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Interesting.

This formula means, generally speaking, that the shipowner is entitled to limit his liability for the negligence of the master or crew, but not for his own personal negligence or that of his managerial personnel.

Does this mean, if the captain fucks up their liability is limited, but if the accident is caused due to systematic poor maintenance maybe not?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

[IANAL]To a degree yes, this is why they love to find human error, it gets them covered by their insurance and limits the liability. Systemic issues that can be proven to come from the office would open them up. This is all before we get into shell companies and vessel charters .

[–] dejected_warp_core 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Does this mean, if the captain fucks up their liability is limited, but if the accident is caused due to systematic poor maintenance maybe not?

I think so, yes. It makes sense and is likely to apply here. IIRC, some article report that the ship lost power twice right before all this happened. Assuming that's a direct cause, the whole mess may wind up with a deep investigation to understand if the crew or shipping company is at fault.

I also looked up what that means for the pilot. While the pilot works for the harbor, they are acting as a part of the crew when on ship. So outside of insubordination or gross negligence, the harbor and/or pilot take no liability here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

While the pilot works for the harbor, they are acting as a part of the crew when on ship.

Yeah I remember reading about this during the ever given thing. If the pilot fucks up the ship's owner is still first cock on the block.

[–] John_McMurray 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You can just watch the video. All the lights go out twice.

[–] dejected_warp_core 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Yeah, I skipped all video of this thing because there were people on that bridge. Some links just need to stay un-clicked. But that's good to know, thank you.

I interpreted "power" as "propulsion", but I suppose a ship-wide blackout could do that too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I won't tell you what to do, but I watched the video, and I couldn't tell that any people were on the bridge.

I wouldn't have known anyone was even on it to get hurt except for all the news coverage.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Power could also be electrical power and propulsion could be engine power.

Source: the name of my division at work is called Power and Propulsion

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I interpreted “power” as “propulsion”

Like on star trek. Love it.

[–] John_McMurray 2 points 7 months ago

No, you can literally watch the lights go out and since the electric power comes from the engine, that likely means they lost the engine, especially considering that puff of black smoke, the lights coming back on, then dark again.

[–] dezmd 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

But what does that signify in the context of the scenario in question?

Powering everything down and bringing it back up sounds like an emergency last ditch sort of troubleshooting step, not necessarily some evidence of negligence. They may have just literally done the thing we all know to do first, try turning it off and on again, and they may have done it twice just to be sure.