Basically in most cases the vessel owner is only liable up to value of the vessel itself. It’s something that like much of the maritime industry came about from practices in the 19th century and vessel ownership back then. Unfortunately, the vessel is likely worth no where near as much as taking out a fucking bridge. Also in any given scenario a vessel could be owned by the captain, owned by a corp, leased by a corp to a captain, leased by a corp to another corp etc. weird ownership scenarios like those are commonplace in shipping.
In certain circumstances a company can be on the hook but the other big wrinkle is determining who is liable in the first place like the vessel crew, or port crew (but for instance if someone from on shore is working on the vessel at the time they are considered acting crewmembers). This is compounded with the whole mechanical error issue and how supposedly the vessel was having maintenance work done before hand, but then lost power twice? Insurance inspectors are going bonkers at this point.
Point is this is a way wackier scenario to deal with compared to your average fender bender. But in a way kinda has to be, not because of lobbying or corporate malfeasance but because of the complex nature of maritime law, shipping, and insurance.
It gets a little weird with the web of ownership, use case, contract details and people involved.
Ok it can get really weird… hear me out.
Basically in most cases the vessel owner is only liable up to value of the vessel itself. It’s something that like much of the maritime industry came about from practices in the 19th century and vessel ownership back then. Unfortunately, the vessel is likely worth no where near as much as taking out a fucking bridge. Also in any given scenario a vessel could be owned by the captain, owned by a corp, leased by a corp to a captain, leased by a corp to another corp etc. weird ownership scenarios like those are commonplace in shipping.
In certain circumstances a company can be on the hook but the other big wrinkle is determining who is liable in the first place like the vessel crew, or port crew (but for instance if someone from on shore is working on the vessel at the time they are considered acting crewmembers). This is compounded with the whole mechanical error issue and how supposedly the vessel was having maintenance work done before hand, but then lost power twice? Insurance inspectors are going bonkers at this point.
Point is this is a way wackier scenario to deal with compared to your average fender bender. But in a way kinda has to be, not because of lobbying or corporate malfeasance but because of the complex nature of maritime law, shipping, and insurance.
Thanks for such an interesting perspective. That’s pretty complex, but also it makes sense now that I think about it.