Bridge Collapse Baltimore

[billanole]

The Skanska case in Pensacola Federal and Florida civil courts is instructive.

Skanska was building the new bridge over Pensacola Bay. They had over 50 barges involved, and had just completed one of the two spans. Hurricane Sally shifted from expected landfall along the MS-AL line about 75 miles east, and the major impact was the FL-AL line, pushing a major storm surge into Pensacola Bay.

Skanska had a hurricane plan as part of their contract. The plan was detailed, and it involved moving the barges to a safe harbor. They did not do so, and 28 of the barges broke loose, taking out multiple spans of the new bridge. As a result, a 35+ mile detour was required for people living across the bay. A lot of businesses were affected for over 9 months. Those businesses sued in Florida Circuit Civil Court. Skanska sued in Federal Court, and argued the same Maritime Law applied, and they should be limited to direct damages, and limited to the value of the vessels.

Skanska lost in the Federal District Court, and appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. All the lawsuits in Florida Circuit Courts resumed. The Federal Circuit Court overturned the District Court ruling. That fight has the additional element of contract law and liability.

Ultimately, the archaic maritime law is pretty specific, and limits liability to direct liability up to the value of the vessel. That essentially means the cost to repair the bridge itself, deaths of the people on the bridge, but no indirect costs.

 

[billanole]

I was involved with a Skanska project in North Carolina that was slowed due to Covid. They were terrible as far as moving the project forward. A rep from a regional company that was the best we worked with regarding staying on schedule, safe conditions and prompt payment asserted that Skanska is a law firm acting as a contractor.
They are lawyers, delaying, billing hours, sucking the life out of the payees. Calling them a general contractor is an inaccurate assertion.

 

[Fijimn]

Fresh reports that the ship was having electrical issues while docked, the crew was aware, but they decided to set sail anyway and fix the while underway. I am sure the crew and ships engineers are capable of handling a lot of stuff while underway, but how widespread was the issue, and did they fail to recognize a larger issue looming?
https://apnews.com/article/baltimor...vestiagation-58188d524035c756872603055f309c78

Unseaworthiness of a vessel is a basis to bust limitations. I had a case in Mobile where a tanker was turning in the harbor and lost starboard thrusters - causing it to allide with the port gantry crane, toppling the crane. Turns out the vessel had lost thruster power several times. The Coast Guard arrested the captain.

The crazy thing about that case was the crane operator that was in the cab walked away after the collapse and disappeared. Dude should have been dead. And he just walks away.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Never having undertaken such a task.... I feel like they will be getting ships in and out of that port well prior to Memorial Day, maybe even a month earlier than that. Now I think it will be much longer before everything is cleared everywhere in that port.

But with the "money" in and out of that port, there will be a gigantic effort to clear at least one channel through the mess. Again, that is just my feeling, I could be way wrong, we'll see I guess. Mid-April would not shock me...but again...that is just the minimal amount of work to get a guided ship in and out, not totally cleared.

Also, could they not just drag some pieces out of the way for a temp fix?

A start...first ship through the wreckage.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

A start...first ship through the wreckage.

That amazes me. Just think about how much work that must have taken. I was skeptical that they could move this fast.