Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00984/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00984-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

-1-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT OF 

HARRY ELMER WILLIAMS and TAMARA 

WILLIAMS, REGISTERED OWNERS of the 

1988 53-foot Hyundai Elegante MK V, HIN: 

HTG49015B888, Official Number: 937193, 

named “OCEAN VENTURES”, her engines, 

tackle, apparel, etc. in a cause of Exoneration 

From or Limitation of Liability

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 11-CV-00984 BTM (WMc)

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

Honorable Barry Moskowitz

Pretrial Conference Date: February 26, 2013

Pretrial Conference Time: 4:00pm

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the parties submit the following Proposed Pretrial 

Order. 

Following pretrial proceedings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.6.

IT IS ORDERED:

I. Nature of Action:

This is an action for limitation of liability pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §183(a) arising out of a 

boat fire on or about March 24, 2011. 

A. The remaining parties are: 

(1) Harry and Tamara Williams (plaintiffs in limitation)

(2) Continental Insurance Company (claimant)

(3) The Standard Fire Insurance Company (claimant)

(4) Robert Witkop (claimant)

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 9
-2-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. The relevant pleadings which raise the issues are:

(1) Complaint for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability filed by Harry and 

Tamara Williams

(2) Claim and Answer of Continental Insurance Company

(3) Claim and Answer of the Standard Fire Insurance Company

(4) Claim and Answer of Robert Witkop

II. Federal jurisdiction and venue are invoked upon the following grounds: Admiralty 

jurisdiction exists under 46 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. The fire incident and damages occurred on a 

navigable waterway in the City of San Diego.

III. The following facts are admitted and require no proof: 

A. “Ocean Ventures” is a 1988, 53-foot Hyundai Elegante MK V, HIN: 

HTG49015B888, Official Number: 937193.

B. At all times relevant, “Ocean Ventures” was located within the jurisdiction of the 

United States District Court Southern District of California. More specifically, the vessel was 

located on the navigable waterways of San Diego Bay.

C. On March 24, 2011, a fire started aboard the vessel “Ocean Ventures,” which was 

owned by plaintiffs in limitation, Harry and Tamara Williams, while docked in Coronado Loews 

Marina. The fire quickly spread to adjacent boats owned or insured by the Claimants in this case.

D. On the evening of the incident, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, their daughter and their dog, 

were aboard their vessel “Ocean Ventures” in its slip at Coronado Loews Marina. Mr. Williams 

smelled an electrical type of smoke and unplugged a small portable floor heater, thinking that 

might be the cause of the smell. He then plugged in another small heater. Soon thereafter, 

Mr. Williams noticed smoke coming from the baseboards along the starboard side of the salon and 

from the starboard side head, which was amidships. The exact source of the smoke could not be 

found, so Mr. Williams and his family prudently exited the vessel. As they did, Mr. Williams 

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 9
-3-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

turned the shore power breaker off at the dock. The Williams’ vessel then caught fire. The blaze 

engulfed the vessel and subsequently caused damage to other boats and property, including those 

owned or insured by Claimants.

E. The cause of the fire likely was electrical. The fire started either at the shore power 

connector on the starboard side of the vessel or in the wiring on the interior of the vessel adjacent 

to the shore power connector.

F. Claimants’ vessels were damaged by the fire that started aboard the “Ocean 

Ventures.” Claimants have no comparative fault with respect to the cause of the damage to their 

respective vessels.

G. Claimant Continental Insurance Company (“Continental”) is the subrogated insurer 

for the vessel owned by Robert Witkop. Continental’s damages as a result of the fire are 

$82,180.10.

H. Claimant Standard Fire Insurance Company (“Standard”) is the subrogated insurer 

for the vessel owned by Craig Dever. Standard’s damages as a result of the fire are $80,887.03.

I. Claimant Robert Witkop was the owner of a 1981 45 foot motor yacht name “Proper 

Toi,” which was one of the vessels destroyed by the fire that originated on “Ocean Ventures.”

IV. The following facts, though not admitted, are not to be contested at the trial by 

evidence to the contrary:

A. The “Ocean Ventures” was over 20 years old at the time of the incident. Mr. 

Williams owned the vessel for the 6-year period before the fire. Mr. Williams had never inspected, 

or arranged for inspection, of the shore power connector wiring immediately internal to the vessel.

B. Mr. Williams had replaced the shore power cable a disputed number of times before 

the subject fire because of scorching damage at the connector to the starboard side of the vessel. 

C. Mr. Williams did not hire a marine electrician or surveyor to evaluate the prior 

electrical scorching incidents with the cable connectors. 

D. Mr. Williams inquired about the scorching issues with a salesman at a marine 

hardware store (West Marine), who recommended that he replace the cable.

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 3 of 9
-4-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. The following issues of fact, and no others, remain to be litigated upon the trial: 

A. The specific cause and origin of the fire.

B. The number of times Mr. Williams had previously replaced the vessel power cables 

and/or female cable connectors due to scorching damage.

C. Whether the prior scorching events with the shoreside power cable and/or 

connectors gave Mr. Williams sufficient notice that he needed to retain an electrician, surveyor, or 

other marine expert to investigate and evaluate the problem.

D. Whether the actual fire was causally related to overheating of the shoreside power 

cable and/or starboard electrical power inlet on the vessel.

E. Whether the internal wiring of the vessel immediately adjacent to the starboard 

electrical power inlet on the vessel had been damaged over time as a result of the prior cable 

scorching events.

F. The value of Robert Witkop’s vessel and personal property that were damaged 

above and beyond the $65,000 agreed value with Continental.

VI. Witnesses and Depositions

The parties expect to call the following witnesses at trial, who will testify on the following 

topics, which are generally described and without limitation:

1. Harry Williams: Mr. Williams will testify regarding his purchase, use and overall 

ownership of “Ocean Ventures”. He will testify regarding his experience with other 

vessels as well as his experience with any electronic issues pertaining to shore 

power cords for the vessel “Ocean Ventures”. His deposition has been taken by 

Claimants.

2. Fred Herrera: Mr. Herrera will testify as an expert regarding the cause and origin of 

the fire which started on “Ocean Ventures”. His deposition has been taken by Claimants.

3. Todd Schwede: Mr. Schwede will testify as both a percipient and an expert 

regarding his investigation into the fire aboard “Ocean Ventures”. He is a certified Marine 

Surveyor and coordinated the vessel inspections by all parties. His deposition has been taken by 

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 4 of 9
-5-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Claimants.

4. John Bradshaw: Mr. Bradshaw will testify as both a percipient and an expert 

regarding his investigation into the fire aboard “Ocean Ventures.” He is a certified Marine 

Surveyor and participated in the inspection by all parties.

5. Rick Grunbaum: Mr. Grunbaum will testify as an expert regarding the cause and 

origin of the fire which started on “Ocean Ventures.”

6. Robert Witkop: Mr. Witkop will testify regarding his purchase, use and overall 

ownership experience of “Proper Toi”. Mr. Witkop will testify that the vessel was destroyed in the 

fire that originated on the Williams’ vessel. Mr. Witkop will testify as to the condition, shape, 

equipment on the vessel and his opinion regarding value. Mr. Witkop will also testify as to why he 

had the boat insured at the agreed upon value at the time of the fire. Mr. Witkop will also testify to 

what personal property was on the vessel and lost as the result of the sinking of his vessel and the 

value of said personal property. Mr. Witkop will also authenticate a list of the personal property so 

lost. Mr. Witkop will also testify as the Williams’ vessel, what he was aware off regarding prior 

electrical issues and what Mr. Williams told him regarding those issues.

7. Patricia Andreoni: Mrs. Andreoni will testify as to the condition of “Proper Toi” at 

the time of its destruction by fire. Mrs. Andreoni will also testify as to the personal property that 

was on the vessel at the time and the value thereof.

8. Ed Howland: Mr. Howland will testify as a percipient witness regarding what 

observations he had made and what conversations he had with Mr. Williams regarding the 

electrical issues on the Williams’ vessel prior to the date of the fire. He will also testify as to some 

of the personality located on the Witkop Vessel.

9. Kells W. Christian: Mr. Christian is a marine surveyor and will testify as to value of 

Witkop’s vessel as of the date of its sinking and will authenticate his valuation report and Claim 

Assistance Report including photos. He will also testify as to his observations and conversations 

he overheard or participated in re; condition of the William’s vessel and fire causation.

///

///

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 5 of 9
-6-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VII. The exhibits to be offered at the trial, together with a statement of all admissions by 

and all issues between the parties with respect thereto are set forth below. The parties have 

stipulated to the authenticity of the listed exhibits: 

1. Fred Herrera Fire Investigations Cause and Origin Report;

2. Photographic evidence taken by Fred Herrera, CFI;

3. Declaration of Value executed by Todd Schwede;

4. All exhibits attached to deposition transcripts of all deposed witnesses;

5. Photographic evidence taken by Todd Schwede;

6. Physical items taken from “Ocean Ventures” retained and stored by Fred Herrera;

7. Survey Report prepared by John Bradshaw, including photographs;

8. Fire Origin and Cause report prepared by Rick Grunbaum, including photographs 

and attachments;

9. Christian & Co Marine Surveyors report; 

10. Itemization of all personal property located on the vessel “Proper Toi” at the time of 

the fire; and

11. Christian & Company Claim Assistance Report.

VIII. The following issues of law, and no others, remain to be litigated upon the trial: 

1. The Limitation of Liability Act (“LOLA”), and more specifically 46 U.S.C. §183(a), 

provides in relevant part:

The liability of the owner of any vessel, whether American or foreign, for any . . . 

loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or 

forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such 

owner or owners, shall not, except in the cases provided for in subsection (b) of this 

section, exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and 

her freight then pending.

2. The LOLA permits a vessel owner to limit his or her liability for loss or damage 

caused by that vessel to the value of the vessel immediately after the incident, provided he or she is 

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 6 of 9
-7-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

without “privity or knowledge” with respect to causing the incident. Claimants seeking to impose 

liability have the initial burden of proving negligence or unseaworthiness caused the loss; once 

established the burden then shifts to the vessel's owner to prove lack of privity or knowledge.

3. The determination of whether liability is to be limited is a two-step analysis by the 

court: (1) what, if any, acts of negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness caused the accident, 

and (2) whether the vessel owner had knowledge or privity of those same acts of negligence or 

conditions of unseaworthiness. In re Moran Towing Corp., 166 F.Supp. 2d 773 (E.D.N.Y. 2001);

In re Sause Brothers Ocean Towing (D.Or. 1991) 769 F.Supp. 1147, 1151.

IX. Legal Contentions.

1. Claimants contend that based on the facts of this case, the fire occurring aboard the 

docked vessel is a res ipsa loquitur case of negligence. Moreover, the admiralty doctrine of 

unseaworthiness is a form of strict liability that requires the owner of a vessel to ensure that a 

vessel and its appurtenant equipment and appliances are “reasonably fit for her intended service.” 

Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 494, 499. Spontaneous fires do not occur 

aboard vessels in the absence of negligence or unseaworthiness. 

2. Claimants contend that, “When an owner is in control of and operating his pleasure 

craft he has privity or knowledge with respect to its operation, therefore he is not entitled to 

limitation for accidents arising from his negligence.” Complaint of Ingoglia (1989) 723 F.Supp. 

512, 514. 

3. Plaintiffs’ in Limitation contend a vessel owner need not prove the specific cause of 

the loss and it was without privity and knowledge to that cause: if the basis for liability is found to 

be a general condition, such as a finding of “unseaworthiness” of the vessel, the specificity of the 

claimants’ proof of liability determines the level of specificity at which the vessel owner must 

prove lack of privity and knowledge. Carr v. PMS Fishing Corp. 1 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999).

4. Plaintiffs’ in Limitation contend proof of unseaworthiness of the vessel does not in 

itself defeat the right to limitation, but shifts the burden to the vessel owner to prove lack of privity 

and knowledge. Keys Jet Ski, Inc. v. Kays 893 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1990). A vessel owner has 

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 7 of 9
-8-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

privity in an unseaworthy condition “if he personally participated in the negligent conduct or 

brought about the unseaworthy condition.” In re Omega Protein, Inc. v. Samson Contour Energy 

E&P, LLC 548 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2008). 

5. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation contend that, “Privity” under the Act has been defined as 

follows: “...personal participation of the owner in some fault, or act of negligence, causing or 

contributing to the loss, or some personal knowledge or means of knowledge, of which he is bound 

to avail himself or a contemplated loss, or a condition of things likely to produce or contribute to 

the loss, without adopting appropriate means to prevent it.” Lord v. Goodall, Nelson & Perkins 

S.S. Co., 15 F. Cas, 8, 506 (C.C. Cal. 1877); See also, petition of M/V Sushine II, 808 F.2d 762 

(11th Cir. 1987).

X. The foregoing admissions having been made by the parties, and the parties having 

specified the foregoing issues of fact and law remaining to be litigated, this order must supplement 

the pleadings and govern the course of the trial of this cause, unless modified to prevent manifest 

injustice.

Dated: February 26, 2013

The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 8 of 9
-9-

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Dated: February 19, 2013 ALCANTARA & ASSOCIATES, APC 

s/James W. Alcantara

James W. Alcantara, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-in-Limitation

HARRY ELMER WILLIAMS and TAMARA WILLIAMS

Dated: February 19, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID S. PORTER

s/ David S. Porter

DAVID S. PORTER, ESQ.

Attorney for CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Dated: February 19, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BAIRD

s/ Carol L. Gatz

CAROL L. GATZ, ESQ.

Attorney for

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dated: February 19, 2013 MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES

s/ Michael B. McDonnell

MICHAEL B. MCDONNELL, ESQ.

Attorney for ROBERT WITKOP

Case 3:11-cv-00984-BTM-WMC Document 61 Filed 02/26/13 Page 9 of 9