Judge pauses Key Bridge collapse trial

Listen to this article

A federal judge postponed the first planned trial over Baltimore‘s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse following a rush of settlements over the weekend.

The ruling came down the morning that opening arguments in the liability trial were set to begin. The owner and manager of the ship that crashed into the bridge on March 26, 2024, had settled with the families of the six men who died as well as numerous other entities over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar made his ruling Monday morning after hearing arguments from the shipowners and the remaining parties with claims. All the remaining litigants agreed that the trial, planned for five weeks, should be delayed.

Bredar found that the remaining claimants, which include Baltimore City and Baltimore County governments, have economic loss claims that could be barred by the Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Robins Dry Dock and Repair Co. v. Flint. He set in a schedule for the parties to brief the issue.

The decision suddenly upended a lengthy, complex trial that was years in the making. The shipowners, Grace Ocean Private Limited and Synergy Marine Group, had sought to exonerate themselves from liability or limit it to just about $43.6 million — a small fraction of what the claimants sought — under a 19th century maritime law. All the parties said they were prepared for trial: Attorneys for the shipowners had their opening arguments slideshow presentation readied on their computer screens.

The shipowners settled first with the federal government for over $100 million and settled with the state of Maryland for $2.25 billion last month. At the end of last week, the shipowners settled with the wrongful death and personal injury claimants, finishing out its volley of settlements Saturday.

In the 1927 decision, the Supreme Court established the “Robins Dry Dock rule,” which bars pure economic loss recoveries caused by negligence unless claimants also suffered physical damage to a proprietary interest. But, the parties with claims against the shipowners noted, there are exceptions that followed over the next 99 years, such as exceptions for intentional torts or “criminal or intentional conduct.”

The remaining claimants are seeking damages for economic losses stemming from the collapse, which cut off maritime trade at the Port of Baltimore. One exception, though, is a 72-inch water main under the Patapsco River that the City of Baltimore claims was damaged in the collapse.

Still, “deciding the Robins issues now may well facilitate an informed voluntary settlement of the remaining claims, as it will provide the parties with clarity about the value of the remaining claims,” said Bredar, finding that with only “Robins-related claims left, the court is convinced that now is the time for the court and the parties to face the Robins issue.”

“Proceeding to trial where motions practice may resolve nearly all of the remaining claims, or actually resolve all of them, is an inefficient use of court, and therefore public resources,” he said.

The remaining claimants had argued that the criminal proceedings against Synergy would help resolve criminal negligence issues that could shed light on Robins issues. Bredar, however, declined to stay the limitation of liability proceedings until the criminal matter concludes.

Instead, the shipowners have two weeks to file a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. Bredar ruled that the matter should be fully briefed by mid-July.

“My view, at least preliminarily, is that it is time to face the implications of Robins in this case,” Bredar said.

This story has been updated.