• fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Interesting.

      This formula means, generally speaking, that the shipowner is entitled to limit his liability for the negligence of the master or crew, but not for his own personal negligence or that of his managerial personnel.

      Does this mean, if the captain fucks up their liability is limited, but if the accident is caused due to systematic poor maintenance maybe not?

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Does this mean, if the captain fucks up their liability is limited, but if the accident is caused due to systematic poor maintenance maybe not?

        I think so, yes. It makes sense and is likely to apply here. IIRC, some article report that the ship lost power twice right before all this happened. Assuming that’s a direct cause, the whole mess may wind up with a deep investigation to understand if the crew or shipping company is at fault.

        I also looked up what that means for the pilot. While the pilot works for the harbor, they are acting as a part of the crew when on ship. So outside of insubordination or gross negligence, the harbor and/or pilot take no liability here.

          • dezmd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            But what does that signify in the context of the scenario in question?

            Powering everything down and bringing it back up sounds like an emergency last ditch sort of troubleshooting step, not necessarily some evidence of negligence. They may have just literally done the thing we all know to do first, try turning it off and on again, and they may have done it twice just to be sure.