The recent cargo ship crash that destroyed the Baltimore Francis Scott Key Bridge has raised questions about the ancient legal field of maritime law. This legal system, which dates back to the Phoenicians and Greeks, developed over centuries to regulate disputes and rules on the seas before the concept of defined countries with laws existed. Maritime law has evolved through international conventions and domestic laws to establish codes that govern maritime activities globally.
One principle of maritime law, known as general average, has its roots in ancient Rhodes around 3,000 years ago. This principle dictates that if cargo must be thrown overboard to save a ship, the losses are to be shared equally by all merchants onboard. This rule still guides modern maritime law and can also extend to cover repair costs and other expenses related to accidents. In the case of the Baltimore bridge collapse, the costs of damage and lost cargo could be shared between the ship owner and merchants with cargo on board.
The Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 is another archaic principle that could come into play in the aftermath of the Baltimore incident. This law allows shipowners to limit their financial liability to the value of their vessel and cargo after a loss, protecting them from excessive claims in the event of accidents. The Titanic disaster in 1912 brought attention to this legal tenet when the owners of the ship used it to limit their liabilities to survivors and relatives of those who perished. Since then, many shipowners have invoked this law in various incidents to limit their financial responsibility.
A Supreme Court Case from 1927, Robins Dry Dock v. Flint, established that pure economic losses are not recoverable from ship owners and operators in the absence of physical injury or specific contract clauses. This ruling could impact companies seeking compensation for lost business due to the Baltimore bridge collapse. Despite the ancient origins of maritime law, the legal system has been validated by the Supreme Court and federal laws, incorporating it into modern legislation. The clear, well-established, and potentially boring nature of maritime law contrasts with the media portrayal of lawlessness in international waters, highlighting the consistent framework that governs maritime activities globally.
