US Seeks Over $100M From Owners of Ship That Destroyed Bridge in Baltimore

The U.S. on Sept. 18 brought various claims against the two Singaporean businesses that owned and operated the vessel that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, DOJ announced. The lawsuit looks to recover over $100 million in costs the U.S. incurred over the course of its response to the "fatal disaster" and for "clearing the entangled wreck and bridge debris from the navigable channel so the port could reopen" (In the Matter of the Petition of Grace Ocean Private Limited, D. Md. # 24-00941).

The claims additionally seek punitive damages against the firms, though it doesn't seek any money for the reconstruction of the bridge, as those efforts will be led by the State of Maryland. The issue was raised as part of a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland brought by the Singaporean firms seeking "exoneration or limitation of their liability to approximately $44 million."

The U.S. said the vessel, the DALI, lost power, regained it, then lost power again before hitting the bridge while navigating the Fort McHenry Channel.

In all, the U.S. levied five claims against the companies, the first of which alleges negligence under the general maritime law. The government said when a moving vessel "allides with" a stationary object, there's a "heavy presumption that the vessel was at fault for the allision." The U.S. said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows for an assumption of negligence to be made where the facts greatly suggest negligence took place but direct evidence may be hard to come by, applies.

Given the "logical inference" that the ship wouldn't have "had power failures 'had it not been defective,' under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur" the ship was "unseaworthy as a matter of law," the U.S. said. The government added that the collision "was caused by and occurred as a result of the acts, omissions, negligence, faults, recklessness, lack of due care, and breaches and violations of duties and law" by the ship and its crew.

The other counts in the case are a claim for recovery under the Rivers and Harbors Act, a claim under the Oil Pollution Act, public nuisance and punitive damages.