Mayor says rescue efforts are under way after vessel crashed into Francis Scott Key Bridge, sending vehicles into water

A portion of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore has collapsed after a large boat collided with it early on Tuesday morning, sending multiple vehicles into the water.

At about 1.30am, a vessel crashed into the bridge, catching fire before sinking and causing multiple vehicles to fall into the water below, according to a video posted on X.

“All lanes closed both directions for incident on I-695 Key Bridge. Traffic is being detoured,” the Maryland Transportation Authority posted on X.

Matthew West, a petty officer first class for the coastguard in Baltimore, told the New York Times that the coastguard received a report of an impact at 1.27am ET. West said the Dali, a 948ft (29 metres) Singapore-flagged cargo ship, had hit the bridge, which is part of Interstate 695.

  • Willy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    43·
    7 months ago

    holy shit. I’ve been getting alerts about it, but that video is so much worse than I imagined.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      1121·
      7 months ago

      That doesn’t look like a little repair, which is what I had assumed. That looks like the ship’s insurer is buying Baltimore a new bridge.

      googles

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)

      The main span of 1,200 feet (366 m) was the third longest span of any continuous truss in the world.

      Smooth.

      The bridge, at an estimated cost of $110 million

      Construction of the Outer Harbor Bridge began in 1972, several years behind schedule and $33 million overbudget.

      So $143 million in 1972 dollars…

      https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

      $1.06 billion in 2024 dollars.

      EDIT:

      https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9697428

      95k ton displacement.

      https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/Convention-on-Limitation-of-Liability-for-Maritime-Claims-(LLMC).aspx

      Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC)

      The Convention provides for a virtually unbreakable system of limiting liability.  Shipowners and salvors may limit their liability, except if “it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such a loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result”.

      The limit of liability for property claims for ships not exceeding 2,000 gross tonnage is 1 million SDR.

      * For larger ships, the following additional amounts are used in calculating the limitation amount:

      • For each ton from 2,001 to 30,000 tons, 400 SDR

      • For each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, 300 SDR

      • For each ton in excess of 70,000, 200 SDR

      So that’d be 29,200,000 SDR.

      https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx

      1.325610 US dollars per SDR.

      So about a $39 million limit on marine liability for a ship of that size, or under 4% of the price of the bridge.

      Maybe Baltimore taxpayers are gonna be buying Baltimore a new bridge.

      EDIT2: I wonder how owners of larger ships managed to get lower per-ton liability limits than owners of smaller ships.

      EDIT3: Oh, wait. Apparently the US isn’t party to that treaty. Sounds like the US uses law even more favorable to the shipowner.

      https://iclg.com/practice-areas/shipping-laws-and-regulations/usa

      The United States is not a party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.  Instead, the United States continues to apply the Limitation of Liability Act (the Limitation Act), passed in 1851 to encourage investment in shipping.  Under this Act, vessel owners (including demise charterers) may limit liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight in certain circumstances where the loss occurred without the privity or knowledge of the owner.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_of_Liability_Act_of_1851

      The Act was passed by Congress on March 3, 1851 to protect the maritime shipping industry; at the time, shipowners were subject to loss from events beyond their control such as storms and pirates, so the Act was designed to limit the shipowners’ liability to the value of the vessel. Without it, American shipping was “at a competitive disadvantage” compared to other maritime countries where similar limitations applied.[1]: 260

      Section 3 of the 1851 Act states “the liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel … shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending”.

      I guess if you’re gonna knock down a bridge with a container ship, the US is probably a good place to do it.

      • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        7 months ago

        I am guessing these liability limits are for the cargo, not any damage caused by the ship. If shippers had to ensure everything they shipped for “storms and pirates” in the 1800’s, then they probably wouldn’t be able to do business. So there is a limit to what shippers would owe their clients if a ship got captured or wrecked. Those clients would need their own insurance if they wanted to be made whole in the event of a catastrophe.

        What happens next is likely to be the result if the investigation. If this was a freak mechanical failure, and the boat’s maintenance was otherwise up to date, then maybe the State won’t be able to go after the boat’s owners. But if there’s any inkling that there was negligence in the maintenance of the boat, or in the piloting of it, the the State is going to go after the company for all it can. Depending on what they find, there might even be criminal charges.

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          10·
          7 months ago

          I am guessing these liability limits are for the cargo, not any damage caused by the ship

          The article about the treaty is explicitly talking about damage to things ships hit:

          Under the 1976 Convention, the limit of liability for claims covered is raised considerably, in some cases up to 250-300 per cent.  Limits are specified for two types of claims - claims for loss of life or personal injury, and property claims (such as damage to other ships, property or harbour works).

          • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            7 months ago

            Ok, I stand corrected then. They’re gonna have to sell a lot of crab cakes to fix that bridge…

      • CptEnder@lemmy.world
        12·
        7 months ago

        Ahhh yes corporate arbitration lawyers. They shall be among the first to be flayed in the uprising.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        2·
        7 months ago

        the liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel … shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending".

        I think that’s probably way more than $39 million.

        The Ever Given that got stuck in the Suez Canal was worth about $125 million carrying about $600 million in cargo. It had a capacity of 20,000 TEU (twenty foot equivalent units).

        This MV Dali has a capacity of about 10,000 TEU and was carrying 4700 containers. I think no matter how you slice it, the value of the ship and its cargo would be in the hundreds of millions.

          • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
            1·
            7 months ago

            The feds will front the money to start clearing the harbor and fixing the bridge as soon as possible, but I’d think that they’re gonna go after the ship for whatever they can recover. They have whole offices of lawyers who go after liable parties for costs they end up covering.