After the S.S. Peter Stuyvesant sank on February 6th & 7th, 1978, Anthony's sued the company that had installed the mooring system. That company had installed the system in 1968, a decade before the Blizzard hit.
The company's defense was that more than 6 years had passed between their installation of the mooring and the storm, so was beyond the statute of limitations.
Anthony's argued that the six years couldn't have started from the date the ship was first moored, the six years started from the day the mooring failed, since that's the first day Anthony's could have known the mooring was defective.
The court agreed.
I couldn't find out what happened next, if Anthony's got any money back.
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/396/396mass818.html
The plaintiff's [Anthony] claims for breach of express warranty are subject to the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, and they accrued when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the breach. Summary judgment properly was granted for Haley & Aldrich [defendant architect] on all counts and for Crandall Dry Dock [defendant contractor] on all counts except the one alleging breach of express warranties in the design of the mooring system. The judgment for Haley & Aldrich is affirmed; the judgment for Crandall Dry Dock is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case against Crandall Dry Dock is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So was Anthony not required to completely remove the boat from the Harbor bottom? I imagine you couldn't get away with not totally removing it today.
Depths are in feet.According to USHarbors.com (http://ma.usharbors.com/explore/harbor-guide/boston-harbor) the depth is 2-10 (fathoms or feet, not clear on the chart). Good map, shows another wreck on the other side by Louis Boston and a few others in the other pier areas.
Dare I ask if those white panels are part or the design or just temporary?
So was Anthony not required to completely remove the boat from the Harbor bottom? I imagine you couldn't get away with not totally removing it today.
Dare I ask if those white panels are part or the design or just temporary?
Are there height restrictions in Seaport Square because of Logan? It seems like all of the buildings only go a certain height, is this because of the height restrictions, lack of interest in more taller buildings, or just the fact that tall buildings in Seaport would look strange for the city skyline, or because there aren't many exits and entries, so putting many businesses would mean havoc for traffic? Space in Boston is so valuable and we're on the verge of running out of it, I just figured they would put more focus into making Seaport a larger scale, but that's just my opinion.
Just wondering...