In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Roy <
[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:32 PM, micky wrote:
The Baltimore Sun, today:
"he Justice for Victims of Foreign Vessel Accidents Act on Tuesday.
The bill would retroactively increase the liability rate for damages by
foreign vessels starting March 25, the day before the Francis Scott Key
Bridge collapsed"
I know the ex post facto clause in the 5?th Amendment refers to criminal
laws, but I thought it was never/rarely/bad form to change civil laws
retroactively. Any other famous, infamous, or not well known examples?
Nevertheless, courts may allow retroactive application of statutes, >regulations, or standards under certain circumstances.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retroactive
Right on point. The law limiting liability seems like a gift to ship
owners. I don't know of other areas where the limit can be so much
lower than the amount of damage done. OTOH, something like the
Comstock law, it should have been repealed long ago before it was inconveniencing people when the government tried to enforce it, instead
of after the inconvenience began.
It has not been forbidden in civil cases but is very highly unusual.
People should know what's illegal before they do something. Maybe ship
owners would have taken more precautions if they'd known they could have
a greater liability. Since the Key Bridge was knocked down, there have
been 7 other incidents in the Baltimore part of Chesapeake Bay where
ships lost some or all of their power!! Amnazing.
OTOH, every time a new kind of tort is created in a lawsuit, that is to
large extent an ex post facto law. Even if the rules for what
constitates a tort are observed.
It is interesting that not one of the news stories mention the
Constitution and the ban on retroactive laws.
I guess I'm more thoughful than the authors are. Finally, something to
hold onto.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)