The first moves of the legal disputes over who will pay for the Baltimore Francis Scott Key Bridge disaster, and how much, so far have followed a predictable course. First there was a filing by the shipowner to limit liability to $43.7m under the 1851 US shipping act (restricting liability limits to the value of the vessel and its cargo), and now there has been a counter-filing by one of the affected parties explaining why they think the 1851 limitation of liability law should not apply in this particular case.
Shipowner Grace Ocean and ship manager Synergy Marine Group will face trial in Baltimore after lawyers for the city filed a case on Monday April 22nd, claiming the that container ship Dali (IMO 9697428), which struck the bridge on March 26th, killing six people and causing both the complete collapse of the bridge and the cutting off of Baltimore Port from the Atlantic, had left Baltimore Port with “unseaworthy” conditions.
“For more than four decades, cargo ships made thousands of trips every year under the Key Bridge without incident. There was nothing about March 26th 2024 that should have changed that. But Petitioners, Grace Ocean Private Limited and Synergy Marine Pte Ltd, saw fit to put a clearly unseaworthy vessel into the water. Petitioners’ actions were grossly and potentially criminally negligent. In no way should their liability be limited”, the filing claimed.
The filing also claimed, among a long list of allegations, that the companies provided the vessel with an “incompetent crew that was inattentive to its duties” and “failed to comply with local navigation customs /or usage”, failed to maintain properly the vessel and failed to comply with industry standards.
The City of Baltimore’s lawyers have alleged that “negligence” led to the disaster. “Reporting has indicated that, even before leaving port, alarms showing inconsistent power supply on the Dali had sounded. The Dali left port anyways despite its clearly unseaworthy condition”, a lawyer for the city of Baltimore said in the filing.
The filing has also accused the crew of being incompetent and of not paying attention to their duties. Such first filings usually cover all bases, and this one was no exception. The lawyers added allegations that there was a failure to maintain or use several pieces of equipment, including the ship’s engine and propulsion system.
Parties with claims against the Dali have until September 24th to file notice in federal court. There will likely be a lengthy court battle over whether the owner can successfully cap liability. The key phrase of the 1851 Act is likely to be whether the owner had “privity or knowledge” of the issue that caused the crash, or if the ship wasn’t seaworthy before it left port. The legal definition of “seaworthy” goes way beyond what a general member of the public might think, and is not confined just to mechanical issues.
The shipowner and the Dali’s manager are likely to take their time in producing a considered response to the claims. The city’s filing was the first among what are expected to be many objections to the limitation of liability filing.
Meanwhile the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has launched a criminal inquiry into the accident.
The Dali’s voyager data recorder (VDR) indicated that there was a power failure for 1:03 minutes as it approached the bridge. The lead pilot tried to swing the 300-metres long vessel clear of the bridge by dropping the port anchor, in the hope that this would force a pivot away from the bridge support that the Dali eventually struck.
The 9,962 teu, 2015-built, 95,128 gt, Singapore-flagged, Dali is owned by Grace Ocean Pte Ltd of Singapore. It is managed by Synergy Marine Pte Ltd of Singapore. The vessel is entered with Britannia P&I.
