Singaporean shipowner Grace Ocean and shipmanager Synergy Group face trial in Baltimore after lawyers for the city filed a case yesterday, claiming the ship that knocked over a huge bridge killing six people last month had left port with “unseaworthy” conditions.
The legal battle over the Dali containership’s fatal allison with the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26 will be long and costly. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has launched its own criminal inquiry into the accident while the shipowner and manager had earlier this month filed a federal lawsuit earlier denying responsibility for the accident and seeking to limit the total payout to $43.7m.
Lawyers representing the city of Baltimore fired back yesterday, hitting out at what they see as “negligence” leading to this year’s most headline-grabbing shipping accident.
“Reporting has indicated that, even before leaving port, alarms showing inconsistent power supply on the Dali had sounded,” a lawyer for the city of Baltimore said in the filing. “The Dali left port anyways despite its clearly unseaworthy condition.”
The city also accuses the crew of being incompetent and inattentive to their duties, adding allegations of failing to maintain or use several pieces of equipment, including the ship’s engine and propulsion system.
Grace Ocean and Synergy have yet to file a response to the allegations.
Dali’s voyager data recorder showed power failed for just one minute and three seconds as it approached the bridge, and that the lead pilot tried to swing the 300 m long vessel clear of a collision by dropping its port anchor to pivot it away.
The 9,962 teu Dali containership has been pinned down under mangled steel in the Patapsco River since March 26. Salvors have managed to open three shallow channels with tons of steel from the bridge removed.
Yesterday saw the arrival of a 1,000-tonne hydraulic grab (pictured), which will help speed up removal of the downed bridge.
The official bridge clean-up team has provided an update (see below) of what parts of the bridge have been cleared in the near one month since the accident with authorities saying they aim to get the port back to full operating capacity by the end of May.
“Singaporean shipowner Grace Ocean and shipmanager Synergy Group face trial in Baltimore…”
Could someone please explain why Maersk is not a party to the lawsuit? Who directly employed the crew, Synergy Group or Maersk? From a customer perspective, we understood this to be a Maersk operated vessel.
Thanks.
You better check charter manifest for this vessel at that time if you like to know.
I would rather say Charter Party.
Crewing and technical management both by Synergy.
Thank you.
Sir.
The vessel in question was under Time Charter to Maersk Line and not on Demise /bare boat charter. The duties and reponsibilities between Owners/Managers and Time Charterers are clearly described in CP main body , raider clauses and vessel description . The three mentioned parts form a CP , which is a binding contract .
In both NYPE and Boxtime T.C. CP there is a clause ,that says as follows:
NYPE 2015 QUOTE: Clause 26 (Navigation)
Nothing herein stated is to be construed as a demise of the Vessel to the Charterers. The Owners shall remain responsible for the navigation of the Vessel, acts of pilots and tug boats, insurance, crew, and all other matters, same as when trading for their own account. END QUOTE
In addition in the same NYPE CP , there is an extremely important clause :
QUOTE: Clause 44 (International Safety Management (ISM))
During the duration of this Charter Party, the Owners shall procure that both the Vessel and “the Company” (as defined by the ISM Code) shall comply with the requirements of the ISM Code. Upon request the Owners shall provide a copy of the relevant Document of Compliance (DOC) and Safety Management Certificate (SMC) to the Charterers. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter Party, loss, damage, expense or delay caused by failure on the part of the Owners or “the Company” to comply with the ISM Code shall be for the Owners’ account.
The ISM provision is a basic statement of the law in that the owners are legally obliged to make sure that the ship and the “Company” comply with the ISM Code during the charter period. END QUOTE
Item NYPE 2015 is downloadable from the web – sample copies. as well as Boxtime CP
What does that mean ???
1. The requirement to comply with SOLAS Convention
2.
Well , because I lack sofistication of the legal eagles as far as english language is concerned, i will borrow the sentence from the unquestionable expert in the field of ISM code and SMS( safety management systems) Dr. Phil Anderson DProf FNI and :
QUOTE: The ISM Code will be the best friend a Ship Manager could ever wish for or the worst enemy He (the manager) could ever imagine . END QUOTE .
I may chip in with my own humble invention : ” last nail in the coffin”
It looks to me the ISM Managers and Owners of Dali had neither friends nor luck, when Dali hit the bridge and was incased in steel coffin for a while.
Hence would strongly suggest to leave The Big Blue at peace ………………..for a while of course 😉
Rgds
Maersk only chartered the vessel it means they only rent a vessel they are not the operator .
Maersk is the OPERATOR of this vessel. Which means, they have ‘Chartered in the vessel’ and are responsible for the cargo.
Maersk has not spend money for buying this ship, but it has been done by Grace Ocean. Normally Grace Ocean will be a single ship company who will earn from Maersk.(!)
Synergy Marine are the Technical and Crewing managers of the ship. So from crew selection, all repairs maintenance and all costs except for fuel (Maersk), Port dues and Pilotage and at tome water too (Maersk).
This is how the business of Ship Management is structured.
Thank you for the detailed insights everyone.
Maerks only chartered the vessel while synergas energy is the one reponsible for the crewing of the vessel. It is the owner and manager has all the responsibility when it comes to crew matters. The fact that crew were found to be incompetent during the investigation the manager’s who employed the crew must answer all findings from investigating body. A lot of explanation from manager’s side pertaining to this issue.
Maerks is only a charterer.
Crewing incharge is synergas. Employing of crew solely done by synergas managers. Prior employing, each crew had been vetted and passed according to managers assessment. If a crew unable to do his assigned task professionally then managers were answerable of all the things that may happen onboard ship.
Maerks only employing the vessel by giving a cargo only that would be delivered from point A to point B.
1.sy.by generator may be not come load.
2.due to heavy load machinery starting, running generators unable to stablize the load sharing.
3.fuel tank may contain water or clogged fuel filters.
4.if bow thrusters are used during departure port,may cause over power surge and tripping of generators.
5.may be all generators, including stby generator are not efficient to take heavy load.
6. May power sharing of generator panel may be faulty.
7.engine control room may be unattended, during maneuvers,
8. Bridge may be not aware of all generators are working condition.
9.pre departure check list not filled properly..or followed.
Interesting update from Sam and nice work by Slawomir on Time CP detail. Yes, looks like the owners and their P&I Club are up the – US Limitation Act “knowledge and privity” test – creek which, under US law, extends beyond the owners to both the Master and crew. So goodbye to owners’ petitioned limitation at USD 43.8 million and hello unlimited liability. Not a happy day for the Club, the IG pool and their reinsurers. However, based on numerous US court limitation busting events, almost certainly anticipated. And interestingly, something which would not happen if the US had ratified the Limitation of Liability Convention 1976 and 1994 Protocol which provides a virtually unbreakable limitation process based on vessel GT. Perhaps Slawomir would like to do the calculation?
Sir.
The appearance of supreme mind and Personality among the amateurish commentators like me , may have one of the following effects :
a) debilitating
b) paralysing
c) freezing
d) other, causing acute delirium tremens like symptoms
e) all above combined.
Having said that, I have still some residual presence of mind left in me, not to venture into a terra incognita territory laced with legal land mines .
I have only been schooled ,trained and practiced to calculate all what is pertinent to ship’s static and dynamic conditions in their entirety, with or without aid of smart dedicated computer programs.
Although knowing the GT of Dali and being cognisant of what is contained in IMO
general guidance and data here :
https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/Convention-on-Limitation-of-Liability-for-Maritime-Claims-(LLMC).aspx
one may be tempted to do it , as at first sight it appears to be fairly easy. But my instinct tells me to leave it to experts , who know what they are talking about and practiced it .
Copy/pasting CP terms and texts written by experts is much less trap infested ballgame, then hitting even a ballpark figure here.
No Sir. I am grateful for Your kind offer and proposition but must decline it as caution dictates. I am not going into this rabbit hole and will comfortably remain :
frozen stiff 😉
Brgds
P.S. but would be very glad to see how such calculation is done by experts.
It looks like book sellers , pizza hut and Toi Toi owners are after Dali too, suing for damages.
I hear it on the grapevine their “legal eagles” secret ” wunderwaffe ” will be ” TRANSITORY UNSEAWORTHINESS “.
Source : gCaptain Forum , thread : Baltimore City accuses Dali owners of negligence in Key Bridge collapse.
Brgds