Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60872

RI CHA RD C RAVE N P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. CA S HM AN EQ UI P M ENT C OR P ORAT I ON D e fen d a n t - C ro ss C la im a n t - C ro ss D e fen d a n t - A p p e ll a n t - C ross - A pp el l ee

v. O F F S H O R E S P E C IA L T YFA B R IC A T O R S IN C

. C ross D efen d a n t - C ross C l a i m a n t - A p p ell ee - C ross A p p ell a n t.

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he So ut he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 1: 06- C V

- 545

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d P R A D O an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60872

2 App el l antCas hm an Equi pm e ntCor po r at i o n ( " Cas hm an" ) a ppe al s t he j u d g me n ti n fa v o ro f a p p e l l e e R i c h a r dC r a v e n ( " C r a v e n " ) i n t h i s ma r i t i me ne gli ge nc e c as e . Cas hm an ar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t m ad e c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us factf i n di n gs, err ed i n ap porti on i n g fau l t , an d erroneou sly rej ect ed l i m i t ati on of lia b ility
. C r o s s -A p p e lla n t O ffs h o r e S p e c ia ltyF a b r ic a to r s , In c . ("O S F I" ) a p p e a ls t he di s t r i c tco ur t ' s fail ur e t o a w ar d p r ej udg m e nti nt e r e s to n it s r e i m bur s e m e nt cl ai m againstC ash m an . W e af f i rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s j u dg m en tbu trem an d f or con sider a ti on of O S F I’ s en titl em en t t o p reju d gm en t i n teres t.

F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND C ash m an ow n ed the Coni c al , adil ap i da t e d d r e d g el i t t e r e d wi t h de br i s a nd st rew n w i t h t ears. W h en t h e Co n ica l w as m oo r ed atC ove Fl ee t i ng, C as hm an
r e m o ve d he rc r ane , c r e at i ng a t hr e e - footb y t hr e e - f o o tho l e i n t he de c k (t he

" h ol e" )

. C ash m an then m ovedt h e Co n ica l t o t h e R iverl an d Fl eet i n g faci l i t y on t he At c hafal ay a Rive r . O SFI l e as e d ab ar ge f r o m Cas hm an andw as r e t ur ni ng t he bar ge t o River l and F l ee t i ng w hen th e a c c i dentoc c urr ed. O SF I w as i n st ructed t o pl ace t h e rented barge i n a positi on t h at r equ i red securi n g t h ree ba r ge s (i nc l udi ng t he Coni c al) an d shi f t i ng t he gr oup al ong t he r iver . Thi s w as to be do n e a t nigh t. Vi e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he j udg m e nt , Cr av e n, an O S F I em pl oyee, boarded t h e Co n ica l t o pr e pa r e i tf o rs hi f t i ng. Af

t e rt he Co n ica l anda no t he rb ar gew e r e s e c ur e d t o ge t h e r , Cr av e n' s pa r t ne rw as w o r ki ng t o un t i e t h e Coni c alf rom i t s m oori n gs. C raven m ovedt o assi sthi s part n er, w i t h ou ta f

u n ct i on i n g h ead l i gh ton h i s s afet yh e lm e t. O n hi s w ay, he w al ked
across an un l i tarea of t h e Coni c al 's deck an d fel lt h rough t h e hol e. C raven sued C ash m an f or m ari t i m e n egl i gen ce an d O S F I u n der t h e Jon es A ct
. Pri or t o t ri al , C raven an d O S F I set t l ed an d O S F I f i l ed a cross

- cl ai m against Cas hm an f

o rr e i m burse m e nt
. Af t e rab e nc h t r i al , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und C as hm an 85 pe r c entatfaul t , O SF I 10 per c entat faul t , and C r aven 5 per c entatN o. 08- 60872

3 fa u lt. I n a separate r u l i n g, t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed C ash m an ' s pet i t i on f or l i m i t ed l i abili t y becau se t h e Co n ica l w as a " dead v es se l , " and bec ause C as hm an h adkn ow l edg e of

an d p rivi t y t o the h ol e. C ash m an a pp eal s t h e di st ribu t i on of fau l tan d the l i m i t ati on of l i abili tyrul i n gs. O S F I ap pea l s onl y t h e di st ri ct court' s fai l u re to aw ard p rej u dg m en ti n t ereston O S F I' s r ecovery of past
m ai n t en an ce and cure expen ses. DI S CU S S I ON T h e st an da rd of

rev iew f

or a bench t ri ali s w el lest abli shed : Findings of fac ta r e r e vi e w e d f

o rc l e are r r or an d l e ga li s s ue s a r e r e vi e w e d de no vo . In re Mi d

- S ou t h T

ow i ng Co. , 4 1 8 F .3 d5 2 6 , 5 3 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C le a re r r o re x is ts if ( 1) t h e f i n di n gs are w i t h ou tsubstanti alevi den ce t o sup port t h em , ( 2) t h e court
m i s ap pr e he nde d the e f fe c to f t he e vi de nc e , a nd ( 3) t he f o r c e a nd e f

fe c to f t he t est i m on y, consi dered a s a w h ol e, convi n ces t h e courtt h at th e f i n di n gs are s o aga i n stt h e prepon der a n ce o f cr edibl e t est i m on y t h at th ey do n otref l ector
r e p r e s e n t t h e tr u th a n drig h t o f th e ca s e . Mo o rh ea dv. Mitsu b ish i A irc raft In t'l, Inc. , 8 2 8 F .2d 2 7 8 , 2 8 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). A . D is tr ib u tio n o f F a u lt C as hm a n a p p e a l s t he d i s t r ib uti o n o f fa ultb yc ha l l e ng i ngt he fa c t ual f i n di n gs t h at it s r epresentatives saw or sh o u ld h ave seen t h e hol e i n t o w h i ch C r a v e n fe ll . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r tfo u n dth a tL e v a n s P o n t if f ( “ P o n t if

f” ) (C a s h m a n 's
o pe r at i o ns m ana ge r at t he t i m e ) , Ski p Br o us s ar d (“ Bro us s ar d” ) ( an e qui pm e nt
m an ager) , an d other un i den t i f i ed repr e se n t atives (t h e " U n i den t i f i ed R epresentatives" ) saw or shou l d h ave seen t h e hol e. W e f i nd n o c l e are r r o ri n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ' s f i ndi ngs t hatPo nt i f

f a nd B r ous sa r d s aw ors houl d have se en t he hol e. Pon tif f t es t i f i ed t hathe w as at C ove F l eet i n g af

t er th e Coni c al ' s c r a n e h a db e e n r e m o v e d
. Ca s h ma n ' s o wn exp ertt est i f

i ed that t h e cr an e rem oval cau sed t h e hol e. It i s a perm i ssibl e vi ew of th e ev i d en c e t o c onc l ude t hatt he hol e e xi st ed w hen Pontif f vi sit ed and t hatN o. 08- 60872

4 P o n tiff h a dth e o p p o r tu n ityto s e e th e s ig n ific a n t h o le in to w h i c h C r a v e n fe ll. T est i m on y by em pl oyees of O F G I an d R iverl an d F l eet i n g show s t h at B roussard
w as on the Coni c alfo rs e v e r a l d a y s w h e n th e h o le e x is t e d
. I tis ap e r m is s ib le vi e w o f t he e vi de nc e t o c o nc l ude t hatBr o us s ar d s aw ors ho ul d ha ve s e e n t he h ol e. Ei t he rPo nt i f

f ’ s o rBr ou s s ar d' s kno w l e dg e w as s uf f i c i e ntt o s upp o r tt he j udgm ent
. Even i f t he c our t ’ s f

i ndi ngs of k n ow l edge w er e c l ear l y w r ong, how eve r , t he j udgm entw i t hst ands at t ac k on t he un- c hal l en ge d bas i s t hat C ash m an shou l d h ave k n ow n abou tt h e hol e. B . C a sh m a n ' s M o tion for L im ited L ia b il ity C ash m an al so argu es t h at t h e di st ri ct court i n corr ect l y den i ed it s m ot i on f or l i m i t ed l i abili t y becau se itm i st ak en l y cat egori zed the Coni c ala"d e a ds h ip ." W e dono tr e ac h t hi s po i nt
. The r e c o r d p r o vi de s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o de ny l i m i t at i on bas ed o n C as hm an’ s know l edge and pr ivi t y. The o w n er of

a v e s s e lc anno tl i m i thi s l i ab i l i t y i f he ha d k no w l e dg e a nd p r iv ityo f th e c o n d itio n t h a t c a u s e dt h e h a r m . 4 6 U .S .C . § 3 0 5 0 6 (e ). P r iv ityis
c l ear ; t he onl y i ss ue i s w het her C as hm an knew of t he hol e. A co r por at e pr i nci pal i s general l y consi dered to kn ow w h at it s agen t s di scover concerni n g t h ose
m a tt e r s inw h ic h th e a g e n ts h a v e th e p o w e rto b in dth e p r in c ip a l. In reHel lenic, Inc. , 252 F. 3d 391, 395 ( 5t h C i r . 2001)

. D ec i di ng w het her t o i m put e know l edge is fa c t-in te n s iv e , a n ds o m e th r e s h o ldfo rim p u ta tio n is re q u ir e d
. I d. Th e di st ri ct
c our tf ound t hatt w o o f

C as hm an' s agent s, Pont i f f and B r ous sa r d, had ac tu al kno w l e dg e o f

t he ho l e i n q ue s t i o n a nd i m put e d t hatkno w l e dg e t o Cas hm an. A fteraca re fu l rev iew of th e r e co rd , w e d o n o t fi n dclea r e rr o r. Inits b rie f, C as hm an doe s not c hal l enge w het herPont i f f ’ s orB r ous sa r d' s ac t ualknow l edge
can be properl y i m pu t ed to C as h m an . A toralargu m en t , C ash m an m ad e a c ur s o r yc h a l l e n g e a s t o wh e t h e rP o n t i f f o rBr o u s s a r dh a ds u f f i c i e nt
r e s po ns ibility t ow arr anti m pu t i n g t h ei r kn ow l edg e t o C ash m an . Th i s c h al l en ge,N o. 08- 60872

5 h ow ever, does not r i se t o t h e l evelof cl ear err or. P on t i f

f ’ s an d B roussard' s t i t l es (operati on s m an ager an d su pervi sor, res pectivel y) dem on st rat e a l evelof
r e s p o n s ib ilityth a t s u p p o r ts im p u tin g th e ir k n o w le d g e to C a s h m a n . F u r th e r , if
n ei t h er Pon t i f

f nor B roussard w as res pon sibl e f or t h e Coni c al , th e n C a s h m a n is l i able becau se C ash m an fai l ed to pu tan y agen ti n charge of t h e dredge. C . O S F I' s P reju d g m en t I n terest O SFI a ppe al s o nl y t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ' s fail ur e t o a w ar d p r ej udg m e nt i nt er es ton O SF I ' s recov er y f r om C as hm an. O SF Ias se r t s t hatt hi s w as an o ve r s i ghtb y t he di s t r i c tco ur t
. " [ I ] n m ar i t i m e c as e s t he a w ar d o f pr ej udg m e nt i n t erest i s t h e rul e, rath er th an t h e excepti on , an d the t ri alcourtha s di scr et i on t o de ny pr ej udg m e nti nt e r e s to nl y w he r e pe c ul i arci r c um s t anc e s w o ul d m ak e su ch an aw a rdi n eq u i tab l e." Cor pusC hr i s tO i l& G asCo . v. Zapa t a Gulf Mar i ne Cor p. , 71 F
. 3d198 , 204 ( 5th C i r. 199 5)

. W e revi ew fo r cl ear err or th e di st ri ct
c o u r t ' s fa c t u a ld e t e r mi n a t i o n s o f p e c u l i a rc i r c u ms t a n c e s , wh i l e we r e v i e w a d e n ia l o f p r eju d g m e n t in te r e s t fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I d. Thi s c our thel d t hat "[i]f the tri a lcou rt d o e s n o t m a k e a n y m en ti on of p reju d gm en t i n teres t i n i ts j u d gm en t or its f

i n d i n gs of fact an dcon cl u sion s of l a w , the n i t i s . . . dif fi cu l t t o i n fer t h a t th e tri a lcou rt ha s f o u n d p ecu l i a r ci rcu m stan ces a n dde ci d ed to
ex ercise [its] d i scre ti on . " Nori t ak e Co. v. M /V Hel lenicCh ampion , 627 F. 2d 721, 7 3 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 0 ). A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcou rtm ad e no f i n di n gs of

peculi ar circum st an ces t h at w ou l d w arra n tden yi n g prej u dg m en ti n t erestt o O S F I, i tdi d aw ard prej u dg m en ti n t erestt o C raven . W h et h er t h e di st ri ct co u rt's fai l u re t o aw ard O S F I i n t erestw as m erely a cl eri calov ersi gh tor a consci ou s d eci si on , w e cann ot i nfe r . The b e t t e rc o ur s e i s t o re m andfo rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o c o ns i de rt hi s i n t he fir s t in s ta n c e . S ee Jau ch v. Nau t i calS ervi ces , I n c. , 4 70 F
. 3d2 07, 215 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ).N o. 08- 60872

6 F or th e se reason s, t h e j u dg m en ti s AF FI RM ED I N PART a nd REM ANDED I N PART

.