4 ms·

A 173-year-old law for wooden ships could complicate rebuilding in Baltimore

rdtsc 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of... (from the wiki page) > at the time, shipowners were subject to loss from events beyond their control such as storms and pirates, so the Act was designed to limit the shipowners' liability to the value of the vessel. But it's predicated on "the owner can prove it lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand". Losing power a few times before the impact doesn't bode well there.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bell-cot 3y ago
So... A pre-Civil-War law for maritime accidents is still current, and that's now a gigantic and obvious problem. The U.S. Capital, where Congress originally made that law, and still makes the laws, is 40 miles away by road. Any bets on Congress both being competent enough to fix their law, and giving a sh*t enough to actually do that?
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  Congress is well aware of this law, and always has been. They have amended it many times. They have chosen not to abolish it. That has been very deliberate.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the Constitution and not even in the Bill of Rights, so it's pretty damn hard to ignore.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
    Congress can't change the law that applies to this case, but they can change the law for all future cases. More likely they'll leave it since it limits the amount that ship-owning corporations are liable for and socialize the losses by having the taxpayers pick up the difference.
    - bell-cot 3y ago
      Sadly true. Though it may be an extremely lucrative year for congressional lobbyists who specialize in maritime law...
  - tzs 3y ago
    That applies to criminal law, not civil law. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798). Here's an article that goes into great detail about the historical evidence for and against that interpretation [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160309043105id_/http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/6-Zoldan-Final.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160309043105id_/http://wiscons...
Kerrick 3y ago
The act limits the liability of the ship's owner during an accident to the post-crash value of the ship. So, if you crash a ship you only have to pay, essentially, "the rest of the ship." It seems like the materials with which a ship is made is irrelevant to this law, and perhaps even to its intent. The law was passed as a diuretic for the maritime shipping industry, lowering the risk in order to spur economic activity. That remains true, even for steel ships.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Getting rid of it likely would mean moving some of the cost to insurance and increasing the shipping rates. Slowing down both imports and exports. So from certain viewpoint such law makes sense.
ensignavenger 3y ago
While the law was originally written 173 years ago, it is well known and has been amended many times since then to keep it up to date as per the current intents of the current legislature. While one can argue that the law should be abolished or amended further, it is clearly not some outdated, forgotten law.
paleotrope 3y ago
So they rebuild the bridge with taxpayer money. And spend the next 20 years suing Maesk for the cost. And the Feds eventually lose. How is this a complication? The Federal government has no issue spending billions and billions of future tax payers taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of... (from the wiki page) > at the time, shipowners were subject to loss from events beyond their control such as storms and pirates, so the Act was designed to limit the shipowners' liability to the value of the vessel. But it's predicated on "the owner can prove it lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand". Losing power a few times before the impact doesn't bode well there.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bell-cot 3y ago

So... A pre-Civil-War law for maritime accidents is still current, and that's now a gigantic and obvious problem. The U.S. Capital, where Congress originally made that law, and still makes the laws, is 40 miles away by road. Any bets on Congress both being competent enough to fix their law, and giving a sh*t enough to actually do that?

ensignavenger 3y ago
Congress is well aware of this law, and always has been. They have amended it many times. They have chosen not to abolish it. That has been very deliberate.
bombcar 3y ago
Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the Constitution and not even in the Bill of Rights, so it's pretty damn hard to ignore.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  Congress can't change the law that applies to this case, but they can change the law for all future cases. More likely they'll leave it since it limits the amount that ship-owning corporations are liable for and socialize the losses by having the taxpayers pick up the difference.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Sadly true. Though it may be an extremely lucrative year for congressional lobbyists who specialize in maritime law...
- tzs 3y ago
  That applies to criminal law, not civil law. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798). Here's an article that goes into great detail about the historical evidence for and against that interpretation [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160309043105id_/http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/6-Zoldan-Final.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160309043105id_/http://wiscons...

Kerrick 3y ago

The act limits the liability of the ship's owner during an accident to the post-crash value of the ship. So, if you crash a ship you only have to pay, essentially, "the rest of the ship." It seems like the materials with which a ship is made is irrelevant to this law, and perhaps even to its intent. The law was passed as a diuretic for the maritime shipping industry, lowering the risk in order to spur economic activity. That remains true, even for steel ships.

Ekaros 3y ago
Getting rid of it likely would mean moving some of the cost to insurance and increasing the shipping rates. Slowing down both imports and exports. So from certain viewpoint such law makes sense.

ensignavenger 3y ago

While the law was originally written 173 years ago, it is well known and has been amended many times since then to keep it up to date as per the current intents of the current legislature. While one can argue that the law should be abolished or amended further, it is clearly not some outdated, forgotten law.

paleotrope 3y ago

So they rebuild the bridge with taxpayer money. And spend the next 20 years suing Maesk for the cost. And the Feds eventually lose. How is this a complication? The Federal government has no issue spending billions and billions of future tax payers taxes.