Limitation of Liability Act of 1851

Jul 06, 2010, 7:00AM EST
Limitation of Liability Act of 1851
Not so fast on that repeal bill

 The Limitation of Liability Act, now located at 46 U.S. Code sections 30501-30512, was adopted to provide shipowners a measure of protection if their ships were to cause injury or damage to others in cases where the shipowners have no privity or knowledge relative to the cause of the incident.  Congress enacted the statute in 1851 to encourage investment in the marine industry.  At that time, ships departed on voyages sometimes lasting three years and the owners had no ready means of communicating with the masters until the ships returned to homeport.  Many things have changed in the past 159 years, including the ability of owners to keep tabs on their vessels.  That almost instantaneous communications capability means that fewer things are outside the privity and knowledge of the owner.  As a result of the tragic events surrounding the explosion and fire on the MODU Deepwater Horizon with the loss of eleven lives, bills have been introduced in Congress that would, if enacted into law, repeal major portions of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act.  While I have no personal or professional stake in this issue, I do have a certain reverence for the law and for orderly processes.  There have been no real hearings in Congress on these proposed amendments to a venerable statute.  There has been no debate of any kind on the floor of the House or Senate.  We should not be rushing to the judgment that the best way to fix an old statute is to repeal it outright, let alone make that repeal retroactive.  There is no need to enact a repeal of this statute within the next month, as things appear to be headed.  I recommend that Congress slow down this particular measure, conduct one or more hearings, and debate the points on the record.  If, when this has been completed, Congress still determines that repeal is the appropriate course of action, so be it.  But it borders on the unseemly for Congress to act unnecessarily in such a precipitous manner. 
 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Richard Wells
Dennis - First I agree with you that too much legislation is being proposed with too little (or no) study and testimony. So much for being a "Deliberative Body" lately.

Secondly it seems as if the Congress has proposed multiple ex post facto laws in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10.

But in this specific case, am I correct in believing that since they are "only" retroactively modifying a civil suit defense, rather than criminalizing past conduct, it is not constitutionally prohibited conduct? Regardless all retroactive rule/law/tax code changes smell very badly to me…
7/16/2010 12:32:04 PM
 
Dennis Bryant
Richard,
I too believe that laws providing for retroactive effect are contrary to good order and discipline. Individuals and companies make plans (such as purchasing insurance) based on known risks. Changing the rules after the event creates unforeseeable challenges.
7/30/2010 8:08:04 AM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...