3 ms·
> 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: Gener
by michaelt 3y ago
> 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&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title46-section30523&num=0&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGU0Ni1zZWN0aW9uMzA1MDE%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&...
- Timshel 3y agoI was wondering how isolated the ownership was and the NYT reports that Grace Ocean Pte Ltd own 55 ships (according to Equasis). So not as much as I expected.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y agoIt happened in a port so it's a very solvable cost-sharing problem: if you have an unprotected bridge, don't let big ships near it without posting a special bond or making a special commitment to protect the bridge above this liability.