Baltimore bridge collapse

safcforever said:
I know it’s a disaster and devastating for the families but I would love to be part of that clean up crew.
my last job was cleaning up train derailments. Once the initial panic is over and everyone is safe it’s actually exciting doing the clean up

Probably :rolleyes:


That cost under $200 million.


This one took 43 hours to build (with 8000 staff)
Click to expand...
We do that in the UK also, bridges get built over a weekend over railways and roads. They slide them into place
 


jayjaysafc said:
We do that in the UK also, bridges get built over a weekend over railways and roads. They slide them into place
Click to expand...
It’s a strange one. When it’s a private company it can be put back together in no time. As soon as a government is involved they have to pay all the hands on the pot
 
AlpineExile said:
Obviously somebody doesn't want Biden to get the credit for fixing it:

www.threads.net

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

GOP Rep. Dan Meuser says "it's outrageous" for Biden to propose using federal funds to pay for the replacement of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore
www.threads.net www.threads.net
Click to expand...
Why should the government pay for it?

The shipowner is responsible for it and has a massive insurance company to cover them.
 
Gobuchul said:
Why should the government pay for it?

The shipowner is responsible for it and has a massive insurance company to cover them.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the shipowner will try and limit his liability, if he can then they'll not be on the hook for the total cost. Whether they can of course will lie with the courts.

  • Burden of Proof
    A determination of whether a shipowner is entitled to limit his liability involves a two-step analysis. As stated in Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Jones, “[f]irst, the court must determine what acts of negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness caused the accident.159 Second, the court must determine whether the shipowner had knowledge or privity of those same acts of negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness.”160
    • The Initial Burden Lies with the Claimant
      The claimant carries the initial burden to prove that an act of negligence or condition of unseaworthiness caused the accident.161
    • Exoneration from Liability Must be Given Should the Claimant not Prove an Unseaworthy Condition or Act of Negligence
      If the claimant cannot prove that an act of negligence or an unseaworthy condition caused the loss, the shipowner must be exonerated from liability.162
    • Should the Claimant Prove Negligence or Unseaworthiness the burden then Shifts to the Petitioner to Prove Lack of Privity of Knowledge
      Once the claimant satisfies the initial burden of proving negligence or unseaworthiness, the burden of proof shifts to the shipowner to prove the lack of privity or knowledge.163
  • Privity and Knowledge
    Section 183(a) provides that a shipowner is entitled to limit his liability for loss or damages which was incurred without his “privity or knowledge.”164 As with many of its other sections, the Limitation Act does not define “privity or knowledge.” Judicial interpretation of this term has held that privity or knowledge
 
Last edited:
cfg said:
I would suggest that the shipowner will try and limit his liability, if he can then they'll not be on the hook for the total cost. Whether they can of course will lie with the courts.
Click to expand...
Government might have to crack on in meantime as that’ll no doubt drag on years.
 
Gobuchul said:
Why should the government pay for it?

The shipowner is responsible for it and has a massive insurance company to cover them.
Click to expand...
The shipowner and insurance should but I would assume that it will be a long drawn out process that will takes years before any monies are paid out, so in the meantime for the sake of having a functioning infrastructure and accessible port the government footing the bill to get the work done then claiming it back from those parties is probably the best outcome from this situation.
 
Barry Quizshow said:
The shipowner and insurance should but I would assume that it will be a long drawn out process that will takes years before any monies are paid out, so in the meantime for the sake of having a functioning infrastructure and accessible port the government footing the bill to get the work done then claiming it back from those parties is probably the best outcome from this situation.
Click to expand...
That's what will happen.

The other major complication is that the new bridge will be a much more complicated and expensive structure, the shipowner will not have to pay for an "upgrade".
 
S
Barry Quizshow said:
The shipowner and insurance should but I would assume that it will be a long drawn out process that will takes years before any monies are paid out, so in the meantime for the sake of having a functioning infrastructure and accessible port the government footing the bill to get the work done then claiming it back from those parties is probably the best outcome from this situation.
Click to expand...
SUNDERLAND COUNCIL NO DOWT HELPING THERE COMMIE MATE BIDEN OUT AT COUNCIL TAX PAYERS EXPENCE !!!!!!
 
A structural engineering expert like er um you know sort of um er offers her um like thoughts on um um what er happened.

 
Last edited:
Elon Musk suddenly realises he's a Civil Engineer ... and is probably bidding for the contract too:

www.threads.net

Jim Wright (@stonekettle) on Threads

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
www.threads.net www.threads.net

www.threads.net

Jim Wright (@stonekettle) on Threads

The steel trusses that were subjected to massive destructive stresses and are now submerged in saltwater. But then again, Elon IS an expert on rocket science, so it follows he would advocate exploding a bunch of test bridges until one he finally get one that works. Anyway, I'm looking forward...
www.threads.net www.threads.net
 
Last edited:

Back
Top