上個月,一艘貨輪撞上弗朗西斯·斯科特·基大橋,有6人已被推定罹難,巴爾的摩市市長和市議會已正式起訴這艘貨船的船東和管理者。
3月26日,這艘高985英尺的貨船撞上了大橋的橋墩,導致橋體坍塌,墜入了馬里蘭港口。
“達利號”貨船在事故發(fā)生時載有4,700個集裝箱,其船東為新加坡Grace Ocean私人有限公司(Grace Ocean Private Ltd.),管理方為Synergy Marine私人有限公司(Synergy Marine Pte Ltd.)。
這兩家公司在周一被巴爾的摩市列為訴訟的被告。巴爾的摩市要求被告支付巨額賠償,包括重建大橋的費用,還有與貿(mào)易損失、稅收損失和公共福利支出等有關的成本。
《財富》雜志從起訴書中發(fā)現(xiàn),Grace Ocean和Synergy Marine面臨20多項與管理不善有關的指控,起訴書指出事故發(fā)生前,每天有數(shù)千艘船從橋下穿過。
起訴書中寫道:“這次事故本不應該發(fā)生。有報告顯示,早在‘達利號’貨船離港之前,船上就響起過顯示供電不穩(wěn)定的警報。在明知其狀況不適合航行的情況下,‘達利號’卻還是離開了港口。”
“達利號”的目的地是斯里蘭卡,但起訴書中表示,這艘貨船在離開碼頭12分鐘后,船載數(shù)據(jù)記錄儀就收到了與斷電有關的“多次聲音警報”。
起訴書中還表示,雖然船上有備用發(fā)電機,但其功率不足以讓貨船恢復控制,導致貨船以約7海里的速度撞上了大橋。
Grace Ocean與Synergy Marine試圖根據(jù)美國內(nèi)戰(zhàn)前的一條保護規(guī)定,主張其責任不應超過4,367萬美元,也就是說它們的責任上限為發(fā)生事故之后貨船殘骸的價值。
兩家公司在四月初申請適用該責任限制條款,而且該條款還直接將它們的任何不當行為歸類為事故。申請書中表示:“這起傷亡事故的原因并非申請方[Grace Ocean和Synergy Marine]、貨船或申請方應對其行為負責的任何個人或實體的錯誤、疏忽或懈怠?!?/p>
申請書中還表示,即使有任何錯誤(申請方否認有任何錯誤),這些錯誤也是在“申請方不知情的情況下發(fā)生的”。
在事故發(fā)生后的幾周和幾個月內(nèi),Synergy Marine多次向事故中死難者的家庭表示哀悼。在4月2日的最新情況通報中,該公司表示:“在這段時間,我們的首要任務是保證船員的安全和健康。自從事故發(fā)生以來,我們一直在積極采取各種措施,為他們提供支持?!?/p>
但巴爾的摩市在幾周后提起的訴訟,對這兩家公司否認的內(nèi)容予以嚴厲反駁。巴爾的摩市本周提交的起訴書稱,兩家公司為“達利號”安排的船員“不稱職”并且“粗心大意”,他們?nèi)狈υ诖戏鄣谋匾寄芎团嘤枴?/p>
起訴書還指控兩家公司為“貨船提供的設備不適用于航?!保⑶椅茨軐Υ暗陌l(fā)動機、系統(tǒng)和轉向裝置進行維護。
Grace Ocean和Synergy Marine的代表對《財富》雜志表示,調(diào)查仍在進行中,因此現(xiàn)在不宜對此發(fā)表評論。
“經(jīng)濟引擎急剎車”
巴爾的摩市市長和市議會已經(jīng)駁回了兩家航運公司的有限責任申請,要求法院駁回申請,并裁定兩家公司“應對‘達利號’撞橋事故造成的所有損失負責”。
如果市長辦公室的訴求得到支持,賠償金額將遠不止4,300萬美元。
法院文件顯示,巴爾的摩港2023年的收入超過700億美元,而且在當?shù)刂苯?、間接和附帶創(chuàng)造了51,365個就業(yè)崗位。
起訴書稱,作為巴爾的摩市曾經(jīng)的“可靠常數(shù)”,巴爾的摩港這個“經(jīng)濟引擎”在3月26日被“急剎車”。起訴書表示:“港口進口對本地經(jīng)濟的重要性不容忽視?!?/p>
因此,巴爾的摩市向兩家船運公司開出了長長的賬單。巴爾的摩市希望利用賠償,支付橋梁設計、開發(fā)和重建費用,以及事故發(fā)生后帕塔普斯科河被堵塞的成本。
此外,該市要求被告賠償巴爾的摩交通中斷導致的損失,從橋梁轉道其他公路產(chǎn)生的完善公路維護的費用,以及增加的警察/消防和其他公務人員加班的費用。
巴爾的摩市還主張兩家公司承擔所得稅和財產(chǎn)稅損失,以及事故發(fā)生后清理工作的費用。巴爾的摩市還要求對撞橋導致的妨害公共事件,以及因港口活動減少引起的“危險物質”堆積收取費用。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
上個月,一艘貨輪撞上弗朗西斯·斯科特·基大橋,有6人已被推定罹難,巴爾的摩市市長和市議會已正式起訴這艘貨船的船東和管理者。
3月26日,這艘高985英尺的貨船撞上了大橋的橋墩,導致橋體坍塌,墜入了馬里蘭港口。
“達利號”貨船在事故發(fā)生時載有4,700個集裝箱,其船東為新加坡Grace Ocean私人有限公司(Grace Ocean Private Ltd.),管理方為Synergy Marine私人有限公司(Synergy Marine Pte Ltd.)。
這兩家公司在周一被巴爾的摩市列為訴訟的被告。巴爾的摩市要求被告支付巨額賠償,包括重建大橋的費用,還有與貿(mào)易損失、稅收損失和公共福利支出等有關的成本。
《財富》雜志從起訴書中發(fā)現(xiàn),Grace Ocean和Synergy Marine面臨20多項與管理不善有關的指控,起訴書指出事故發(fā)生前,每天有數(shù)千艘船從橋下穿過。
起訴書中寫道:“這次事故本不應該發(fā)生。有報告顯示,早在‘達利號’貨船離港之前,船上就響起過顯示供電不穩(wěn)定的警報。在明知其狀況不適合航行的情況下,‘達利號’卻還是離開了港口?!?/p>
“達利號”的目的地是斯里蘭卡,但起訴書中表示,這艘貨船在離開碼頭12分鐘后,船載數(shù)據(jù)記錄儀就收到了與斷電有關的“多次聲音警報”。
起訴書中還表示,雖然船上有備用發(fā)電機,但其功率不足以讓貨船恢復控制,導致貨船以約7海里的速度撞上了大橋。
Grace Ocean與Synergy Marine試圖根據(jù)美國內(nèi)戰(zhàn)前的一條保護規(guī)定,主張其責任不應超過4,367萬美元,也就是說它們的責任上限為發(fā)生事故之后貨船殘骸的價值。
兩家公司在四月初申請適用該責任限制條款,而且該條款還直接將它們的任何不當行為歸類為事故。申請書中表示:“這起傷亡事故的原因并非申請方[Grace Ocean和Synergy Marine]、貨船或申請方應對其行為負責的任何個人或實體的錯誤、疏忽或懈怠?!?/p>
申請書中還表示,即使有任何錯誤(申請方否認有任何錯誤),這些錯誤也是在“申請方不知情的情況下發(fā)生的”。
在事故發(fā)生后的幾周和幾個月內(nèi),Synergy Marine多次向事故中死難者的家庭表示哀悼。在4月2日的最新情況通報中,該公司表示:“在這段時間,我們的首要任務是保證船員的安全和健康。自從事故發(fā)生以來,我們一直在積極采取各種措施,為他們提供支持?!?/p>
但巴爾的摩市在幾周后提起的訴訟,對這兩家公司否認的內(nèi)容予以嚴厲反駁。巴爾的摩市本周提交的起訴書稱,兩家公司為“達利號”安排的船員“不稱職”并且“粗心大意”,他們?nèi)狈υ诖戏鄣谋匾寄芎团嘤枴?/p>
起訴書還指控兩家公司為“貨船提供的設備不適用于航?!?,并且未能對船舶的發(fā)動機、系統(tǒng)和轉向裝置進行維護。
Grace Ocean和Synergy Marine的代表對《財富》雜志表示,調(diào)查仍在進行中,因此現(xiàn)在不宜對此發(fā)表評論。
“經(jīng)濟引擎急剎車”
巴爾的摩市市長和市議會已經(jīng)駁回了兩家航運公司的有限責任申請,要求法院駁回申請,并裁定兩家公司“應對‘達利號’撞橋事故造成的所有損失負責”。
如果市長辦公室的訴求得到支持,賠償金額將遠不止4,300萬美元。
法院文件顯示,巴爾的摩港2023年的收入超過700億美元,而且在當?shù)刂苯?、間接和附帶創(chuàng)造了51,365個就業(yè)崗位。
起訴書稱,作為巴爾的摩市曾經(jīng)的“可靠常數(shù)”,巴爾的摩港這個“經(jīng)濟引擎”在3月26日被“急剎車”。起訴書表示:“港口進口對本地經(jīng)濟的重要性不容忽視?!?/p>
因此,巴爾的摩市向兩家船運公司開出了長長的賬單。巴爾的摩市希望利用賠償,支付橋梁設計、開發(fā)和重建費用,以及事故發(fā)生后帕塔普斯科河被堵塞的成本。
此外,該市要求被告賠償巴爾的摩交通中斷導致的損失,從橋梁轉道其他公路產(chǎn)生的完善公路維護的費用,以及增加的警察/消防和其他公務人員加班的費用。
巴爾的摩市還主張兩家公司承擔所得稅和財產(chǎn)稅損失,以及事故發(fā)生后清理工作的費用。巴爾的摩市還要求對撞橋導致的妨害公共事件,以及因港口活動減少引起的“危險物質”堆積收取費用。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
The mayor and city council of Baltimore have launched a legal claim against both the owner and manager of a ship that crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge last month, leaving six men presumed dead.
The 985-foot vessel collided with one of the bridge’s supporting columns on March 26, causing the structure’s collapse into the Maryland harbor.
The Dali, which at the time of the accident was carrying 4,700 shipping containers, is owned by Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd. and managed by Synergy Marine Pte Ltd.
Both companies are named in the lawsuit filed Monday by the City of Baltimore. The city is seeking significant damages not limited to the funds needed to rebuild the bridge, as well as costs associated with a loss of trade, tax revenue, and public welfare expenditures.
The claim, seen by Fortune, lays out more than 20 allegations about the failures of Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine, pointing out that prior to the incident thousands of boats a day passed beneath the bridge.
“None of this should have happened,” the suit reads. “Reporting has indicated that, even before leaving port, alarms showing an inconsistent power supply on the Dali had sounded. The Dali left port anyway, despite its clearly unseaworthy condition.”
The Dali had been bound for Sri Lanka, but the claim adds that 12 minutes after leaving its dock, the vessel’s onboard data recorder picked up “numerous aural alarms” relating to a loss of power.
The claim continues that while a backup generator was on board it was not powerful enough to get the boat back under control, meaning it hit the bridge at approximately 7 knots.
Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine have sought to limit their liabilities in the matter to $43.67 million under a pre–Civil War protection that means their liability can be capped at the value of the vessel’s remains after a casualty.
The liability limitation, filed by both companies in early April, also categorically denies any wrongdoing on their part in the incident. It said: “The casualty was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of petitioners [Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine], the vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts petitioners may be responsible.”
It adds if any such faults did occur—which it denies—these “occasioned and occurred without petitioners’ privity or knowledge.”
In the weeks and months following the incident, Synergy Marine has repeatedly offered condolences to the families of the men who died in the bridge collapse. In an update on April 2, the business added: “Ensuring the safety and well-being of the crew during this time is a critical priority for us. We have been actively engaged in a range of actions to support them since the incident.”
But the filing from Baltimore, submitted a matter of weeks later, gives a damning rebuttal to the businesses’ denial. The claim this week said the companies provided the Dali with an “incompetent” and “inattentive” crew, who lacked the proper skills and training to be on board.
The claim also alleges the businesses “provided a vessel with unseaworthy equipment” and failed to maintain the ship’s engines, systems, and steering.
Representatives for Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine told Fortune it would be inappropriate to comment at this time given ongoing investigations.
‘Economic engine brought to a grinding halt’
The mayor and city council of Baltimore have already countered the maritime businesses’ request for limited liability, asking the court to throw out the petition and find the pair “l(fā)iable for all damages arising from the allision of the Dali into the Key Bridge.”
And if the mayor’s office is awarded the sums it is looking for, it will likely be significantly more than $43 million.
The court documents outline that the Port of Baltimore raked in more than $70 billion in 2023 alone, as well as 51,365 direct, induced, and indirect jobs supported by the site.
This “economic engine,“ once a “reliable constant” for the city of Baltimore, ground to a “halt” on March 26, the suit continues. “It is difficult to overestimate the Port’s import to the local economy,” the suit adds.
As such, the proposed bill for the ship companies is long. Baltimore is seeking the funds to cover the design, development, and rebuild of the bridge, as well as the costs incurred by the obstruction of the Patapsco River after the collision.
On top of that, the city is seeking damages covering the interruption of transportation around Baltimore, the costs needed for improved road maintenance for traffic which otherwise would have gone over the bridge, increased spending on police services, fire services, and other public employee overtime.
Elsewhere Baltimore is pushing to have its loss of income and property tax covered by the companies, as well as the bill for the cleanup operation after the incident. Baltimore is also requesting a fee for the public nuisance caused by the collision and the stockpiling of “hazardous substances” caused by the port’s reduced activity.