On April 16, 1947, the SS grandchamp, a cargo ship owned by the Republicof France and operated by the French Line, was loading a Cargo of fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) at Texas City, Texas. A fire on board the ship, apparently as a result of a longshoreman's having carelessly discarded a cigarette or match into one of the ship's holds. Despite attempts to put out the fire , it spread quickly. Approximately an hour after the fire was discovered, the Grandchap exploded with tremendous force. Fire and burning debris spread throughout the waterfront, touching off further fires and explosions in other ships, refineries, gasoline storage tanks, and chemical plants. when the conflagration was over, 500 persons had been killed and more than 3,000 had been injured. The United States paid out considerable sums to victims of the disaster. The United States then sought to recoup these payments as damages in a negligence case against the Republic of Franceand the French Line. The evidencerevealed that even though ammonium nitrate (which constituted approximately 95 percent of the FGAN) was known throughout the transportation industry as an oxidizing agent and a fire hazard, no one in charge on the Grandchamp had made any attempt to prohibit smoking in the ship's holds. the defendants argued that they should not be held liable because FGAN was not known to be capable of exploding ( as opposed to simply being a fire hazard) under circumstances such as those giving rise to the disaster. Did the defendantssucceed with this argument?

please help me respond to this with three paragraphs, its much needed help. take whatever time, thanks. paragraph is counted as 3 full sentences or more.

Each response will be graded according to the following rubric:

Is the answer correct as it discusses the relevant law?

complete analysis, including alternate scenarios, additional thoughts, and direct correlation between the answer and the question?

well organized?

enough content to demonstrate understanding of the topic?

spelling and grammar, and have good sentence structure?

---------

The SSG was a freighter owned by the Republic of France. The ship used to deliver ammonium nitrate for fertilizer (FGAN). A longshoreman had thrown a cigarette or match into the ship carelessly. As a result, there was fire worldwide, and it also caused damage to other ships, killing about 500 people.

Due to the extreme tragedy, the United States paid out substantial sums to victims. Following that, it tried to recoup these fees from the RF as damages in a negligence case. Even though FGAN was deemed a fire hazard, there were no smoking restrictions on board. The Republic of France argued that they could not be held responsible because they were unaware of the FGAN's explosive capabilities. The provisions relating to tort negligence mean that a plaintiff can often accept the risk of a known threat. It means the plaintiff was aware of the risk's existence and scope.

But, in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that no one could predict an explosion until it happened. The fact that FGAN could explode was the only thing that made them know it. Under Texas law, the proximate cause test was used to conclude that the FGAN explosion impact could not have been expected. As a result, it can be argued that the defendants' case would be upheld.