(3) comments Back to story


There is no "substance" to this article. Kirby has filed a "general denial" saying they are not at fault. Every defendant says that. A separate filing, presented long ago, calls the cargo ship unseaworthy without saying what any defects may have had any relevance to the collision. Nothing new here.

George Croix

Until the official investigation is complete, it's all he said - she said.

“Kirby is going to do everything in their power to avoid responsibility,” O’Rourke said. “With their filing of this limitation, they have signaled their intent to avoid compensating business and individuals for legitimate damages suffered as a result of this spill.”
Complete BS, Mr. Attorney.
Kirby is doing the exact same thing YOU are, acting in the best interests of their client (in this case, themselves). Doing everything in their power to avoid responsibility would have menat a slow response to the spill and and attempting corners cut to clean up, both of which did not happen.
What they've signaled is their intent to have the responsible party compensate people for losses (by the way, Mr. Attorney, that's real losses, not the ones ginned up inside some law office, or in a 'clients' fantasies ...), and they claim the responsible party at this point is the ship's owners. Exactly how YOU are handling your case.
Legitimate claims should be paid, but it will be interesting to see how many phony 'harmed' people have suffered 'losses' from points as far away as, oh, Lubbock...

Miceal O'Laochdha

Quite right gecroix, on all points.

This attorney's comments are both BS and to be expected. His clients will be trying to sue someone (either the barge or the ship owners, depending on the outcome of the allision investigation), so it is incumbent on him to make a statement that serves to publically demonize the first potential defendant. If the ship is found responsible for the allusion, the same attorney will quickly begin to demonize THAT company in the press, instead. He also knows it will require less effort on his party to get money out of a substantial American corporation like Kirby, as opposed to the effort required to do the same among the myriad of multinational owners, ship managers, and underwriters of this FOC ship. Kirby, so far as we can tell from public reports, have stood up admirably to all their initial responsibilities, and did so promptly. Now is the time for them to try to mitigate their losses by suggesting that the Summer Wind was responsible for the root cause of the incident. That may or may not be the case; the NTSB investigation will clarify that issue, and the lawsuits will cascade on down from there.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.