Why don't we treat stuff like this like car collisions? The owner of the ship should be on the hook for the entire bridge cost plus loss of life.
Because corporate personhood is different than person personhood?
I always find it interesting to take corporate fines, translate them to a % of gross income and then apply it to my salary to put it in perspective.
Here’s the best part, a basic 1st offense traffic ticket is usually way more expensive. (I assume a ticket would be around $250 not counting the increased insurance rates.)
Corporations are people up to and until they have to face any consequences.
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.
Lobbyists.
They will be. Although, much like with car collisions, it'll be insurance that's on the hook.
Before that they have to figure who actually owns the ship. Which may or may not be easy.
Why don't we treat stuff like this like car collisions? The owner of the ship should be on the hook for the entire bridge cost plus loss of life.
Because corporate personhood is different than person personhood?
I always find it interesting to take corporate fines, translate them to a % of gross income and then apply it to my salary to put it in perspective.
Here’s the best part, a basic 1st offense traffic ticket is usually way more expensive. (I assume a ticket would be around $250 not counting the increased insurance rates.)
Corporations are people up to and until they have to face any consequences.
Yes, in the sense that the former is fictional bullshit regardless of what the increasingly-illegitimate Supreme Court says.
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.
Lobbyists.
They will be. Although, much like with car collisions, it'll be insurance that's on the hook.
Before that they have to figure who actually owns the ship. Which may or may not be easy.