4 ms·
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 e
by gbil 3y ago
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
- RandomBK 3y agoIt's a petition early on in the case, so it just needs to be based upon "information and belief". The fact-finding step of the multi-year process has yet to begin, but lawyers need to present the best plausible case possible at this stage.
- nashashmi 3y agoThere 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).
- moron4hire 3y agoWhy did the engine fail?
- martyvis 3y agoThat's what the NTSB investigators on board since the crash would be seeking to find out.
- noisy_boy 3y agoA bit premature to declare so, don't you think? What if it comes out that corners were cut regarding engine maintenance or something along those lines?
- gbil 3y agoexactly, is there already an official verdict sourcing from official investigation? I don't think so Furthermore, the engine is part of the vessel, if the verdict is that the engine failed then the vessel owner/insurance can claim any penalties(plus extras) from the engine manufacturer
- crote 3y agoOn the other hand, what if it comes out that the engine failed due to contaminated fuel?
- nashashmi 3y agoThat will have to be an argument that is made and it will be a difficult argument to make. “Engine was not maintained well” is so deeply opinionated. The first thing they do is check standards. Was it oiled? Were the parts replaced periodically? Was the fuel type correct? It could be a mistake. “What kind of engine?” “It needs this type of fuel.” “Oops, no, that was for the older ship. This is a different ship.” “The ship already set sail.” “Nevermind then and keep your mouth shut.”
- jryb 3y agoThe engine failing isn't some random, unlucky event. Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this. Whenever this happens to an airplane it's considered negligence - there's no reason why we shouldn't have the same standards for ships.
- lightedman 3y ago"Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this." Not always. We have regular maintenance done on our SMT lines by the company that manufactured the machines. Those things still fuck up once or twice a month, very unexpectedly, and almost always in the middle of a high-value operation (IC or LED placement.)
- tekla 3y agoYou have no damn clue what you're talking about.
- nashashmi 3y agoIf the engine on airplane fails, it fails immediately before taking off. Destruction is kept to a minimum. Likely no one dies.
- lesuorac 3y agoEngines can fail after take off i.e. [1]. That said, I don't think it's immediately considered negligence when an airlines engine fails. Its premature to call Dali negligence as well; it may very well be but the investigation needs to complete. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
- nashashmi 3y agoHa! But that was a foreign object getting in the engine. And I guess it failed immediately