Baltimore Key Bridge Collapsed

  • Thread starter Tornado
  • 80 comments
  • 5,860 views
Ah.

sabatini-dei.jpg
Either these people are deliberately trolling or they actually believe this. Either one of those realities is beyond ****ed.
 
Here's the Dali's previous encounter with an immovable object. The person filming this has some balls of steel too because I would not want to be that close to a ship hitting anything, especially since it looks like a high tension line sticking out the back.

 
Here's the Dali's previous encounter with an immovable object. The person filming this has some balls of steel too because I would not want to be that close to a ship hitting anything, especially since it looks like a high tension line sticking out the back.


Just twerkin' all over that dock.
 
Here's the Dali's previous encounter with an immovable object. The person filming this has some balls of steel too because I would not want to be that close to a ship hitting anything, especially since it looks like a high tension line sticking out the back.

Someone needs to go to jail. This is looking crazy neglectful and got people killed.


Just twerkin' all over that dock.

:lol: too soon
 
Last edited:
And that's just the major ones. Ship could be cursed. Although I think after this one the ship will be retired.
The ship is not even 10 years old so I'd be very surprised if it was retired due to this - money talks.
 
I would have thought there would be a criminal investigation almost any time a major piece of infrastructure collapsed, especially when the cause is so obviously human. Kinda wild that it took so long.
 
I would have thought there would be a criminal investigation almost any time a major piece of infrastructure collapsed, especially when the cause is so obviously human. Kinda wild that it took so long.
They probably did a pre-investigation of sorts to see if a crime was possible. Since the electrical issue was uncovered, I'm guessing they have reason to believe there was.
 
Last edited:
I expect they're looking to see if this was a recurring issue that hadn't been addressed in previous maintenance, which would likely allow criminal negligence to be established on the part of the ship owner. That takes time to thoroughly investigate, especially when large industries have a habit of "deferring" repairs if it's not immediately affecting production ("Can you get it started again? Then don't worry about it")
 
The FBI has opened a criminal investigation:
Wow, that 1851 law needs to be struck down or re-written. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "Did I cause this bridge to fail?" No. Did any of you cause the bridge to fail? No. The bridge failure was caused by the ship - the owner, operator, possibly whatever entity governs the owner and operator, possibly the owner and operator of the bridge pending an investigation of how properly it was maintained, etc. I would say at least 90% of the liability is on the owner and operator pending the investigation. As hard as I work at my job to make sure I do everything right every time, at risk of my entire career and wellbeing and the next 40+ years of my life, I'm really tired of corporations not being absolutely obliterated for mistakes like like this. This company ought to be paying reparations to American taxpayers for the next 10 years. BP should've been paying our bills for the next 100 but we see how that turned out.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that 1851 law needs to be struck down or re-written. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "Did I cause this bridge to fail?" No. Did any of you cause the bridge to fail? No. The bridge failure was caused by the ship - the owner, operator, possibly whatever entity governs the owner and operator, possibly the owner and operator of the bridge pending an investigation of how properly it was maintained, etc. I would say at least 90% of the liability is on the owner and operator pending the investigation. As hard as I work at my job to make sure I do everything right every time, at risk of my entire career and wellbeing and the next 40+ years of my life, I'm really tired of corporations not being absolutely obliterated for mistakes like like this. This company ought to be paying reparations to American taxpayers for the next 10 years. BP should've been paying our bills for the next 100 but we see how that turned out.
Reading between the lines, that seems like a civil liability limit rather than barring criminal liability.

I understand your frustration that the bridge was knocked down and people died. On the otherhand, if a company decides that they can be bankrupted over any ship operator's failure, shipping might not happen. It might make sense to have some kind of cap on liability just to allow companies to understand the risks they're taking.
 
Reading between the lines, that seems like a civil liability limit rather than barring criminal liability.

I understand your frustration that the bridge was knocked down and people died. On the otherhand, if a company decides that they can be bankrupted over any ship operator's failure, shipping might not happen. It might make sense to have some kind of cap on liability just to allow companies to understand the risks they're taking.
Liability should be proportional to the damage caused. The bridge's estimated cost is $400 million, but the companies are asking for their liability to be capped at $43 million combined. That's 10%, and the federal government will likely pick up the tab for the remaining cost, which means we're all on the hook for it. I feel like that's not nearly enough, especially when you consider the billions that are being lost to not being able to ship stuff in and out of that port. There's also the cost of cleaning up the old bridge along with any environmental impact, and, presumably, the shipping channel will need to be dredged again. Finally, the families of the workers who died will all need a payout as well.

I guess at least it wasn't an American company because I would be far more irritated with the outcome since American shipping companies register their ships in other countries to skirt tax and labour laws.
 
Liability should be proportional to the damage caused. The bridge's estimated cost is $400 million, but the companies are asking for their liability to be capped at $43 million combined. That's 10%, and the federal government will likely pick up the tab for the remaining cost, which means we're all on the hook for it. I feel like that's not nearly enough, especially when you consider the billions that are being lost to not being able to ship stuff in and out of that port. There's also the cost of cleaning up the old bridge along with any environmental impact, and, presumably, the shipping channel will need to be dredged again. Finally, the families of the workers who died will all need a payout as well.

I guess at least it wasn't an American company because I would be far more irritated with the outcome since American shipping companies register their ships in other countries to skirt tax and labour laws.
Presumably you and I are not on the hook for payouts to families other than in a second hand fashion through shared life insurance. Liability in proportion to the damage caused seems fine, but in theory if it prevents commerce from functioning efficiently, it is an area where the government can get involved. That's why we have trademark for example.

I'd like to see it actually play out before we decide it must be capped, and an 1800s example of how it plays out is probably not relevant anymore. I'd go with uncapped liability today and see if it prevents shipping. Because right now they obviously don't care enough to make it safe.
 
It’s been a while… Any locals on here? Have they got all the old bridge out of the way and started pencilling a new one yet?
 

Latest Posts

Back