Transocean cites 1851 law to limit spill liability

[Ruby the Liberal]

A Transocean spokesman said it will cite an 1851 law that makes the owner of a sunken vessel liable only for its value after the accident. The $27 million figure reflects the value of oil the rig was holding when it exploded.

Full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37128693/ns/business-us_business/

This was an exploratory (non-producing) well when it blew.

These people have no soul.

[napi21]

1. Yea, I heard that earlier this evening. I'mn thinking no judge is going to buy it though.

My so had a car shipped from the US to Sicily via ocean freight, aand billions of companies use ocean freight all the time. That freight si insured and if the ship sinks, I guarantee you the Co. that owned the freight, the ocean line, nor the reciepiant of the goods would accept that there was no value since it's now on the ocean floor.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. But your SO's sunken vehicle isn't putting an entire coastline in danger.

I don't see where this even has a fraction of a chance of being admitted.

[napi21]

4. No it isn't, but the ship itself could! If it sank not long after sailing,

it would still be full of fuel. Granted it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the BP disaster but it sure could put a coastline in danger.

I wasn't really considering the possible damage any sunken ship could do. My point was that the reliance on a law from 1850 simply isn't in practice today therefore would be thrown out by a judge.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. DU Attorneys - I get "sunken vessel liability" but am I missing something about damages to others?

Yes, I know, they are all pointing fingers to each other, but this (on the face) seems to indicate transport and the liability to the owner of the assets - yet they are trying to apply it to non-interested yet affected parties?

What am I missing here that makes this an even remotely viable argument?

[stevedeshazer]

5. This must be seen.

Recommended.

[csziggy]

6. K&R