IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30888

LLOYD'S SYNDICATE 1861; D&B BOAT RENTALS, INCORPORATED, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CROSBY TUGS, L.L.C., 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CV-5551

Before DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District 

Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

Plaintiffs – Appellants, D&B Boat Rentals Inc. and its insurer, Lloyd’s 

Syndicate 1861, (collectively referred to as “D&B”), sued Defendant Crosby 

Tugs, L.L.C. (“Crosby”), seeking to recover the expenses they incurred in 

removing their sunken vessel, M/V RICKY B, from the bottom of the Gulf of 

* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30888 Document: 00512986526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-30888

Mexico. Following a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment in favor 

of Crosby. We affirm the court’s judgment.

I.

During the night of May 28, 2013, the RICKY B, while servicing drilling 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, began taking on water in its engine room 

through its starboard stuffing box. On the morning of May 29, after several 

attempts to stop the ingress of water, the RICKY B contacted Crosby for 

assistance. The RICKY B had lost power and its crew was abandoning ship. 

Crosby agreed to dispatch a tug to tow the RICKY B to shore. Several hours 

later, Crosby’s tug, M/V DELTA FORCE, arrived at the scene and observed 

that the RICKY B had a list to port and was sitting low in the water. Following

the owner and operator’s instructions, the DELTA FORCE attached a tow-line, 

without attempting to pump out the water in the RICKY B, and began towing 

the vessel to shallower waters at a speed of no more than five knots. After 

proceeding approximately thirteen miles, the RICKY B completely submerged 

and came to a rest on the bed of the Gulf of Mexico.

D&B filed suit against Crosby alleging that the DELTA FORCE 

negligently towed the RICKY B without pumping the water out first and at too 

high a rate of speed, which caused the RICKY B to sink. After conducting a 

bench trial, the district court found that D&B presented insufficient evidence 

to establish that Crosby acted with either negligence or gross negligence and 

entered a take nothing judgment in favor of Crosby. In reaching its judgment, 

the district court held that: (1) the nature of the services provided by Crosby 

were salvage, not towing; (2) the damage ultimately suffered by the RICKY B 

was indistinguishable from the purpose of the salvage operation (sinking), and, 

therefore, a gross negligence standard applied in determining Crosby’s 

liability; (3) even if the court applied an ordinary negligence standard, D&B 

presented insufficient evidence of Crosby’s negligence; and (4) the 

2

 Case: 14-30888 Document: 00512986526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-30888

Pennsylvania Rule required D&B to show that the statutory violations of the 

RICKY B were not the cause of the accident.

II.

On appeal, D&B first argues that the district court erred in concluding 

that the services provided by Crosby were salvage in nature and not towing. 

Next, D&B argues that regardless of the type of services provided by Crosby—

towing or salvage—the ordinary negligence standard applies; thus, the district 

court erred in applying a gross negligence standard. D&B also argues that the 

district court erred in finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

Crosby’s negligence under an ordinary negligence standard. Finally, D&B

challenges the district court’s application of the Pennsylvania Rule.

After a careful review of the record and consideration of the briefs, we 

are not persuaded that the district court erred in finding that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish that Crosby was negligent in rendering aid to the 

RICKY B. The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Crosby did 

not owe a duty to pump water from the RICKY B before towing it. Michael 

Donner of Louisiana Marine Operators—the company that operated the 

RICKY B—testified that he instructed the crew of the DELTA FORCE to 

“absolutely not” attempt to pump water from the RICKY B due to its perilous 

condition. Thus, the district court’s finding that Crosby had no duty to pump 

water before towing the RICKY B was not erroneous.

Similarly, we agree that D&B failed to establish by a preponderance of 

the evidence that towing the RICKY B at a speed of no more than five knots 

contributed to its sinking. Neither of D&B’s experts testified that five knots 

was an unsafe speed to tow the RICKY B. Although there was conflicting 

evidence on whether towing the vessel at this speed was a cause of the accident, 

the district court resolved this dispute in favor of Crosby, and we cannot say 

its determination was erroneous.

3

 Case: 14-30888 Document: 00512986526 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-30888

Because D&B argues that the ordinary negligence standard applies to 

both salvage and towing operations and we have determined that the district 

court did not err in finding that Crosby did not act negligently, we need not 

address whether the district court properly characterized the arrangement 

between D&B and Crosby as salvage or towing. Similarly, because the district 

court ruled that Crosby was not liable under ordinary negligence standards, 

we need not address the correctness of the district court’s finding that the gross 

negligence standard applied to the damage to the RICKY B. 

Finally, D&B argues that the district court improperly applied the 

Pennsylvania Rule in this case. The Pennsylvania Rule creates a rebuttable 

presumption of causation against an entity involved in a maritime accident, if 

that entity is in violation a maritime rule or regulation intended to prevent 

that type of accident.1 However, the district court found no breach of duty by 

Crosby. The effect of the Pennsylvania Rule in this case, if applicable, would 

have only helped Crosby in establishing comparative negligence on D&B. 

Because the court found no fault on Crosby, the Pennsylvania Rule had no 

effect on the outcome.

III.

For the above reasons and the reasons assigned by the district court in 

its thorough opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED. 

1 See Pennzoil Producing Co. v. Offshore Express, Inc., 943 F.2d 1465, 1472 (5th Cir.

1991).

4

 

 Case: 14-30888 Document: 00512986526 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/30/2015