F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 14 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1011 0

________________________ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 00 47 1- CV-J -2 0- HES-TEM IN RE: SUPER IOR CONSTRUC TION COMPANY, INC., as the owner pro hac vice of the vessel, “ Barge M obro 605 ,” i n ac a u s e o f

a c t i o n o f e x o n e r a t i o n f

r o m, o r l i mi t a t i o n o f, l i ab i l i t y, Co nsol ida te d I n R e: -A ppe lla nt,
ve rs us CHARLES BROC K, ROBERT BOW ERS, etal., Cl ai m an ts- A ppe lle es , JI MM IE W HITE, Claim ant-Consolid ated Claim ant-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (A pr il 14, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L a nd F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. *An allisi on is “[t] he sudden impac t of a ve ssel with a stationary object such a s an 1 anchor ed vesse l or a pier .” Black’ s Law Dictionar y 75 (7th ed. 1999). A collision , on the other hand, is “[t] he cr ashing toge ther of two ve ssels.” Id. at 258. B eca use Appe llees’ moving vessel cra shed into Superior’s stationary vessel, wewill refe r to the De cembe r 29, 2001, incident a s an allision. Rega

rdless, for purposes of this appe al, the distinction betwee n “allision” and “collision” does not haveany bearing on our

leg al analy sis. Under a bar eboat c harte r, also known a s a demise c harte r, “theshipowner surr ender s 2 possession and control of thevessel to the cha rtere r, who then suc cee ds to many of the shipowner’ s rig hts and obligations.” Bl ac k ’s Law D ic tio na ry , su pr a , at 228–29. The chartere r—in this case Super ior—is known as the “ owner pro hac vic e ” of the c harte red ve ssel. See id. at 229 (e mphasis in original). 2 BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e: O n D ec em

be r 29, 200 1, aple as ur e boa t c ar ry ing 12 p as se nge rs a lli de d w ith 1 Appellant Superior Construction Co.’ s (Superior) stationary barge. A fter a bench trial, the district court found Superior liable to the pleasure boat’ s injured pa sse nge rs a nd a w ar de d atot al j udgmen t of $19 , 214, 689. 63 i n e co nomic a nd n one c o n o mi c d a ma g e s . We a f f i r m. I. BACKGROUND A lth ough the dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e ex te nsi ve f ind ing s, w e se t f

orth o nlythe finding s necessaryto place the issues in cont ext. S uperior wa s the general
co ntr ac tor

f or the F lorida

D ep artmen t of

T ranspo rt at ion ’ s pr oj ec t t o w ide n a nd
ex pa nd the Bl an din g B oul ev ar d B ri dge ( the Bridg e) ove r the Ce dar Ri ve r in Jacksonv ille, F lorida. T o assist with the projec t, S uperior entered into a bareboat ch arte r ag re emen t w ith Mo br o M arine , I nc . ( Mob ro Mari ne ), f or use of ( 1) a128

- 2Sup e ri or ’s a nd Ap pe lle e s’ e xpe rt

wi tne sse s a g re e d n e ith e r theInlandNavig atio n Ru le s, 3 33 U.S.C. §§ 2001–2038, nor the Annex to thos e Rules, 33 C.F.R. §§ 84–88, addr ess the lig hting of a ba rg e that is tied to a bridg e under construction. 3 foot long , 38. 5-foot wide, and 7-foot deep barge called the Mobro 605 (the Barge) ; and (2) a 36-foot long, 14.5-foot wide, and 4-foot deep tugb oat called the Mary A nne ( the T ug)
. T he Barg e is p ai nte d c om ple te lybla ck , a s are the T ug’ s hu ll an d lo wer s up ers tru ct ur e. Mob ro Mari ne f

ur nis he d th e Barg e to S upe ri or w ith out a ny pe rm an en t or fi xe d na vig at ion al or

m oor ing li ght s; thus, S upe ri or de vis edit s ow n li ght ing
sc he m e. S upe ri or ’ s li ght ing pla n c al le d f or atot al of te n li ght s po sit ion edon str at eg ic se ct ion s of

the Barg e, a nd t w o li ght s on the T ug’ s st ern. O n th e nig ht o f 3 th e al li si on , ho wev er, o nl y th ree o f th e te n l ig ht s o n t he Barg e, an d o ne of t he two lig hts on the T ug, a ctua llyw orke d. T w o of the Barg e’ s th re e fu nc tio nin g li ght s we re f lashing white lights and on e w as an extremely dim light d escribed by an ey e- w itn es s a s “ loo kin g li ke aba thr oom nit e- lig ht o r a dis ta nt p or ch li ght
. ” T he Tug’ s one operational lig ht was a flashing white light
. These f our light s—which
w er e old , sc ratc he d, sun -d am ag ed , rust -s ta ine d, dirty , a nd g en er al lyin poor co nd it io n— pr ov id ed th e o nl y il lu min at io n o f th e Bar ge an d t he Tug . T he Bridg e’ s 52 8- fo ot w ide pa ssa ge w ayis div ide d in to m ult ipl e spa ns b y su pp or t p il in gs th atris e o utof t he wate r an d c on ne ctto th e Bri dg e’s un de rs id e.4

Although the U. S. Coast Guar d has not d esignated a specific section of the Cedar Ri ve r as af

ed er al ly -m arke d c ha nne l, r ec re at ion al boa te rs ge ne ra llypa ss thr ough
one of thr ee spa ns l oc at edon the Bridg e’ s no rthw es t e nd. T he sup port pi lin gs o n the edges of these three spans have been unofficially m arked w ith spray -painted
ar ro w s. T his ge ne ra lly -r ec ogni ze d tr av el c ha nne l po sse sse s de ep er w at er a nd b es t
en ab le s re crea ti on al bo at ers to saf el y na vi ga te th ei r ve ss el s b en eat h t he Bri dg e. D ur ing the six m onths o f co nstru ct ion w ork pr ec ed ing the a lli sio n, S upe ri or not only saw the spray -painted arrow s, but also witnessed recr eational boaters tr av el ing thr ough the c ha nne l a t sp ee ds a s hi gh a s 70 m ile s pe r hour

( m ph) both da y an d n ig ht
. T hr ough out

the pr oj ec t, S upe ri or

usu al lystatio ne d th e Barg e an d th e T ug suc h th at r ec re at ion al boa te rs c oul d sa fe lypa ss thr ough the Bridg e’ s c omm onl y use d sp an s. O n D ec em

be r 29, 200 1, how ev er , S upe ri or ti edthe Barg e to the ba se of the Bridg e so tha t i t r an para lle l t o th e Bridg e an d bl oc ke d a ll but 38 f ee t of the 120- fo ot w ide c ha nne l— i. e. , tw o of the thr ee spa ns c omm onl y use d by
re cr eatio na l bo at er s. I t the n m oor edthe T ug p er pe ndi cu lar to the Barg e’ s mids hip , suc h th at the Barg e an d th e T ug e sse nti al lyf or m eda“ T ”- shape . A lth ough Superior’ s em

ploy ees could have rem oved the Barge and the T ug from the channel
w ith in 1 5 to 20 m

inu te s, the y ins te adopt edto le av e the ve sse ls i n th is l oc at ion a ndAppelleeJ im Tipton di d not attend the familyg athering, and, conseque ntly , neither 4 rode on theBoat nor suffe red phy sical injuries arising fr om the allision. Rather, he re ceive d noneconomic damag es for

loss of consortium stemming fr om the sever e injuries his wife, Cynthia, sustained in the allision. 5 head hom e for the holiday we ekend. More over, S uperior never chec ked to see what the Barge and the T ug loo ked like from the water af

ter dark. U pon n autical tw ili ght a t 6: 29 p
. m . , the Barg e’ s bl ac k c olo r, ina de qua te li ght ing , a nd u northo dox lo cat io n re nd ered itvi rtu al ly inv is ib le to recr eat io na l b oa te rs on th e Ced ar Ri ve r. That same evening, A ppellees Robert Bowe rs, Ta mmy Bowe rs, Charles Brock, Cy nthia Tipton, Jimmie White, Be tty Wright, and Connie Wright attended
a fa milyga the ri ng a t a

hou se loc at edne ar

the Ce dar Ri ve r. D ur ing thi s ga the ri ng, 4
se ve ra l a tte nde es , inc lud ing Br oc k, c onsu m eda lc ohol ic be ve ra ge s. A ft er sun se t, Br oc k in vit ede le ve n of

the ga the ri ng’ s a tte nde es to go f or ar ide on h is 2 5- fo ot lo ng , 8-f oo t wi de pl eas ur e b oa t (t he Bo at ). As the Boat approached the Bridge at approxim ately 6:52 p .m ., Brock slowed the Boat’ s speed from 34 m ph to 2 2 m

ph and aim ed the Boat to travel thr ough one of

the thr ee c omm onl y use d sp an s. B ro ck ha d f re que ntl y dr ive n th e Bo at und er the Bridg e at

nig ht a nd, giv en S upe ri or ’ s us ua l pr ac tic e of statio nin g the Barg e an d th e T ug t o a llo w sa fe pa ssa ge thr ough the tr av el c ha nne l, he ha d noBr ock testified that, during oneof his prior trips under the B ridg e, he ha d noticed the 5 Ba rg e stationed on the B ridg e’s south end. A dditionally , the one time he pr eviously saw the B arg e at ni g ht, Sup e ri or

ha d il lum inate d it

wi th l ig ht p lants a ndhesp ott e d it fr om a c on sid e ra

ble distance a way . On the nig ht of the allision, however , the B arg e wa s located on theBridge ’s north end and Superior had not utilized light plants. Under Florida and fe deral law, it is unlawful to operate a r ecr eational boat while having 6 a B AL of 0.08 or more . Fla. Stat. § 327.35; 33 C.F.R. § 95.020. Roug hly 3.5 hours af

ter the allision, Broc k’s B AL

was 0.112. At trial, Appe llees pre sented an expert witness who asserted the seve re internal injuries B rock suf fer ed may have c aused his B AL

to inc re as e betwee n the allision and the blood draw. Superior counter ed with an e x pert witness who state d the 3.5-hour t i m e g ap m a y

h a v e m e a n tB r o c k ’ s B A L decre ased betwee n the allision and the blood draw
. Rather than e x pressly

resolve this fa ctual dispute, the district court assumed B rock violate d 33 C.F.R. § 95.020 and F lorida Statutes § 327.35, but nevertheless found B rock’ s leg al intox ication was not a c ause of

the allision. 6 re as on t o su spe ct

the ve sse ls’ uno rthodo x lo catio n. H e an d hi s f el low 5 pa sse nge rs —i nc lud ing the thr ee pa sse nge rs sittin g on the bow w ho w er e not int oxi cate d a nd w ho e nj oy edac om ple te lyuno bstru ct edvie w of the upc oming Bri dg e—c ou ld no t s ee t he Barg e u nt il itwas t oo lat e to av oi d t he all is io n. Consequent ly , the B oat slamm ed into th e Bar ge, throw ing th e passengers forw ard
an d c au sin g se ri ous inj ur ie s. A blo od s am ple dr aw n f

ro m Br oc k r ough lythr ee a nd
a ha lf hou rs a ft er

the a lli sio n in dic at edhis blo od a lc ohol le ve l ( BA L ) ex ce ed edthe le ga l l imit se t f

orth u nde r 33 C
. F. R. § 95
. 020 an d F lorida S ta tut es § 32 7. 35. 6 On June 27, 2002, Superior, as the owner pro ha c vice of the Barg e an d th e T ug, br ough t a n a dmir al tya ct ion in fe de ra l di stric t c ourt f or e xone ratio n f

ro m or li mit at io n o f li ab il it y , pu rs ua ntto th e Limit at io n o f Liab il it y Act. See 46 U. S. C. §§ 1 83–1 89. A ppe lle es c ont es te d S upe ri or ’ s r igh t t o e xone ratio n f ro m orMo br o M ari nea lso br ou g ht an a c tio n f or e xone ratio n f

ro m or lim itatio n o f l ia

bil ity 7 under theLimitation of L iabilityAct, and Appellees c ounterc laimed ag ainst Mobro Marine . On J anuary 26, 2004, the district court dismissed all claims filed by and ag ainst Mobro Marine be c aus e thepa

rtie s r e so lve d th e se c laims in m e diatio n. Mo br o M ari neis thu s n ot a pa rty to this app e a l. Although Appellees’ injuries stemmed solely from the B oat’s allision with the Ba rg e, 8 the district court a lso placed liability on the Tug . Specifically , the district court de termined the Ba rg e wa s an unpowe red “ passive instrument” that r elied on the Tug ’s “dominant mind” for propulsion and lighting . The district court thus found “the Tug was the ‘ controlling vessel’ and is liable for damag es, eve n if [Appellees’] boat did not strike the Tug until after the injurie s occur red.” Superior does not c halleng e this conclusion on appe al. Th e dis tric t c ou rt

a wa rd e d $ 3, 00 0, 21 8 to Rob e rt B ow e rs , $ 1, 24 9, 91 1. 23 to T a mmy 9 B ow e rs , $ 77 0, 84 1. 83 to C ha rl e s B ro c k, $1 ,9 25 ,5 04 .6 9 to Cynth ia Ti pto n, $2 50 ,0 00 to Jim Ti pto n, $3 ,3 17 ,2 77 to Jimm ie Whit e , $ 8, 60 0, 00 0. 57 to B e tty Wri g ht, a nd$1 00 ,9 36 .3 1 to Con nie Wright (on be half of he r minor son, Ashton Wright). 7 lim itatio n of li ab ili ty . A ddi tio na lly , A ppe lle es a sse rt edin pe rs ona m c la im s a ga ins t Su pe ri or , a nd i n r em

c la im s a ga ins t the Barg e an d th e T ug, und er a dmir al tya nd
m ari ti m e la w. 7 Fo llo w ing abe nc h tria l, the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d S upe ri or

w as not
en tit le d to e xone ratio n f

ro m or li mitatio n of

li ab ili tyund er

the L imitatio n of L iabil ityA ct . A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt ( 1) f oundS upe ri or , the Barg e, a nd the Tug liable for A ppellees’ injuries, (2) determined non e of the A ppellees wer e 8
co m parativ el y a t f

au lt, a nd ( 3) a w ar de d A ppe lle es atot al of $19 , 214, 689. 63 i n ec onom ic a nd n on- ec onom

ic da m ag es . T his appe al e nsue d.

9 O n appe al , S upe ri or

arg ue s th e dis tric t c ourt e rr edw he n it f oundthe Barg e obstru ct edna vig at ion in vio la tio n of 33 U
. S. C. § 40 9, pla ce d apr es um pti on o f8

fault on Superior under the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le , a nd d et ermine d S upe ri or f ai le d to show it s vi ola tio n c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the a lli sio n. S upe ri or

a lso
co nte nds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edw he n it de te rm ine d A ppe lle es sa tis fi edthe ir burden un der the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le of sho w ing Br oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion c oul d not ha ve be en ac au se of

the a lli sio n, a nd, c onse que ntl y , r ef use d to apportio n a percentage of fault to Appellees. A dditi onally , S uperior asserts the district court
c l e ar l y e rr e d i n d e t e r mi n i n g t h e t o t a l d a ma g e s i ta w ar d e d t o A p p e l l e e s T a mmy Bo wers an d J immie W hi te . II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW In a n a ct ion tr ie d w ith out aj ur y , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t “ sha ll not be se t a sid e unl es s c le ar lye rr one ous, a nd d ue r eg ar d sh al l be giv en to the oppo rtunity of the trial court to j udge the credibility of the w itnesses.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P . 52( a)
. L ike w ise , w e re vie w f or c le ar e rr or adis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s on the qu es ti on s o f st at ut or y fau lt , neg li ge nc e, cau sa ti on , and da m ag es . Se e Am. D re dgi ng Co. v . L am be rt , 153 F . 3d 1 292, 129 5 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) ; Simm ons v. Conger , 86 F
. 3d 1 080, 108 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ; Orange Be ach W ate r, Se we r & F ire Prot. Auth. v . M

/V A lva , 680 F . 2d 1 374, 138 0 ( 11th C ir
. 198 2)
. W e w ill not f ind th e d is tri ctco ur t co mmit te d c le ar erro r un le ss , “ aft er as se ss in g t he ev id en ce, [we are] left w ith a definite and firm conviction that a m

istake has been committed.”The Oregon Rule should not be confused w ith the Louisi ana Rule. See The Louisiana , 10 70 (3 Wall.) U.S. 164, 173 (1866). Althoug h both of these r ules placea pre sumption of fault on a moving vessel that allides with a stationary object, the Oregon Rule applies to vessels moving under the ir own powe r whe n they allide with a stationary

object, whe rea s the Louisi ana Rul e applies to vessels that drift into a stationary object. See Chicago v . M/V Morgan , 375 F.3d 563, 572 n.7 (7th Cir. 2004) (diff ere ntiating be tween the Oregon Rule and the Louisi ana Rule).

9 W orthi ngto n v. United States , 21 F
. 3d 3 99, 400 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4) ( quot at ion s a nd citations om itted). “ W e re view the district court’ s conclusio ns of law de novo.” A m . D re dgi ng Co. , 153 F . 3d a t 12 95. III . AN AL YS IS A. Legal Fram ework for Cases Involving th e O re gon and Pennsy lvania Rules T his appe al im

pli cate s tw o c omm on l aw bur de n- shi ft ing pr es um pti ons invo ked when a m ovin g vessel allides with a stationary vessel. F irst, the O re gon Rule cre ates a r ebuttable presum ption of fault against a m ovin g vessel that, under it s o wn p owe r, al li de s wi th a st at io na ry ob ject. Th e O re gon , 158 U . S. 186 , 197 , 15 S. Ct
. 804 , 809 ( 1895 ). “ T his pr es um pti on o f ne gli ge nc e m aybe r eb utt edby 10 show ing , byapr ep onde ra nc e of the e vid en ce , e ith er

that the a lli sio n w as the f au lt of the stationary objec t, that the m ovin g vessel acted with re asonable care, or that the allision wa s an unavoi dable accident.” B unge Co rp. v . Fre ep ort M ari ne R ep air , 240 F. 3d 91 9, 923 (11th Cir. 2001). S econd, under the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le ,10

when .
. . a

ship at the tim e of a[ n allision ] is in actual violatio n of a statut or y rule int en de d to pr ev en t [ al lis ion s] , it is no m or e tha n a reasonable presum

ption that the fault, if

not the sol e cause, wa s at least a contributory cause of the disaster. In such a ca se the burden re sts upo n th e shi p of

sho w ing not

m er el y that he r fault

migh t no t ha ve be en one of

the c au se s, or

that i t pr obablyw as not , but that i t co uldnot ha ve be en . Th e P en nsy lv ani a , 86 U .S . ( 19 W all.) 125, 136 (187 3). The P en nsy lv ani a Ru le “ is not arule of li ab ili ty , but

shi ft s th e bur de n of

pr oof a s to c au sa tio n. T his bur de n is strict, but it is not in surm ount able.” Orange Be ach , 680 F . 2d a t 13 81 ( ci ta tio ns om it te d)
. Be cause A ppe lle es ’ boa t, m ovi ng u nde r its ow n po w er , a lli de d w ith Superior’ s station arybarge, Superior ar gues the O re gon Ru le sho uldappl y to Appellees. A ppellees, on the other hand, assert the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le sho uld ap plyto Su pe ri or

be cause it

vio la te d 33 U . S. C. § 40 9, astatut e int en de d to pr ev en t allision s, by obstructin g navigatio n. W e m ust thu s briefly review the interplay betwee n the O re gon a nd P en nsy lv ani a Ru le s. In c as es w he re astatio naryve sse l vi ola te s astatut e int en de d to pr ev en t al lis ion s a nd a

m ovi ng v es se l a lli de s w ith that st at ion ary ve sse l, w e ap plythe bur de n- shi ft ing a na ly sis se t f orth i n Sund erland Marin e M utua l Insuran ce Co. v. W eeks M arine Cons truction Co . :11

The gener al rule is that the presum ption of fault for the allision lies ag ai ns t t he m ov in g v es se l [( i.e., O re gon Ru le )]
. T his bur de n of pr oof shi ft s, how ev er , to the statio naryve sse l w he n th e statio naryve sse l i s in vi ol at io n o f a s ta tu to ry rul e in te nd ed to pre ve ntacci de nt s [( i.e., P en nsy lv ani a Ru le )]
. T he statio naryve sse l the n be ar s th e bur de n of pr oof in show ing that i ts s ta tut or y vio la tio n c oul d no t ha ve be en a co nt rib ut or y cau se of t he all is io n. 338 F. 3d 1 276, 127 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) ( ci ta tio ns o mitt ed ); se e als o P ark er T ow ing Co. v . Yazoo Riv er Towing, Inc. , 794 F . 2d 5 91, 594 ( 11th C ir
. 198 6) ; O rang e Be ach , 680 F . 2d a t 13 80–8 1. I n sh ort, the bur de n of pr oof ini tia llyr es ts w ith the
m ovin g vessel und er the O re gon Ru le
. I f the m ovi ng v es se l c an e stabli sh the stationary vessel violated a statuto ry rule intended to prevent allisi ons, however, then the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le sh ift s t he bu rd en to th e st at io na ry ve ss el
. Our overview of the applicable legal fr am ew ork cannot end here, how ever, because Superior c ontend s that, given Brock’ s legal intox ication, the Boat violated 33 C
. F. R. § 95
. 020 an d F lorida S ta tut es § 32 7. 35 ( i. e. , pr ovi sio ns i nte nde d to prevent allision s), and, there fore, the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le sho ulda lso appl y to App el le es . W he n bo th v es se ls i nvol ve d in the a lli sio n are ope ratin g in vio la tio n of statutes design ed to prevent such mishaps, the [ P en nsy lv ani a ] rule re qui re s “ the dis tr ic t c ourt t o f indthat the statut or y f

au lt of both ve sse ls c ontri but edto the a cc ide nt, unl es s it [ fi nds] that the f

au lt of either .
. . c ould not have been a cause of the [ allision ] .”12

P ark er T ow ing Co . , 794 F . 2d a t 59 4 ( quot ing O tto Ca ndi es , I nc . v . M V M ade lin e D , 721 F. 2d 10 34, 1036 (5th Cir. 1983 )). In other w ords, if e ach vessel successfully invok es the P en nsy lv ani a Rule against its opp onent, then each vessel
m ust ove rc om e a pr es um

pti on o f fault

bysho w ing it s vi ola tio n c oul d no t ha ve be en a cau se of t he all is io n. If neither vessel can satisfy its burden un der the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le , the n th e dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust “ de te rm ine the c om

parativ e fault

of e ac h ve sse l a nd a llo cate liability for dam ages accor ding ly .” G el e v. Ch ev ron O il Co . , 574 F . 2d 2 43, 250 (5 th C ir
. 197 8) ( ci tin g U

nit ed Sta te s v . R el iab le T

rans fe r Co. , 421 U . S. 397 , 408 , 95 S. C t. 1708, 1715– 16 (1975 )); B onne r v . Ci ty of P ric hard , 661 F . 2d 1 206, 120 9 (1 1th Ci r. 198 1) ( statin g F if th C ir cu it de ci sio ns r en de re d prior to Se pte m

be r 30, 1981 , are bin din g pr ec ed en t i n ou r ci rc uit ); see als o P ark er T ow ing Co . , 794 F . 2d at 594 (affirming (1) the district court’ s finding that both vessels failed to satisfy their burden und er the P en nsy lv ani a Rule and (2) its apportionm ent of dam ages betwee n the vessels based on their respec tive degree of f ault). W ith this legal fram ewo rkin min d, we p ro ceed to th e m eri ts of S up eri or ’s app eal
. B. District Court’s Application of the Pennsy lvania R ule to Supe rio r As indicated above, the O re gon Ru le pla ce d a n in iti al pr es um pti on o f fault
on App el le es be cau se th ei r m ov in g b oa t al li de d wi th Su pe rio r’s st at io na ry ba rg e.Be causewe c onclude the district c ourt did not clearly err when it found Superior 11 violated 33 U.S.C. § 409, we will not address the district c ourt’s alternative finding s that Superior violated 33 C.F .R. §§ 84.15 and 88.13, and 33 U.S.C. § 2002. In the alternative, Superior c ontends a § 409 violation cannot invoke the Pe nn sy lv an ia 12 Rule because § 409 “doe s not set forth a c learly -delineated standar d, but instead ca lls for interpre tation and judg ment as to what c onstitut es an ‘ obstruction’ under the particular circ umstances of

eac h individual naviga

ble channel.” To support this assertion, Superior cites four c ases f

rom the Second and Fifth Circuits. See Tokio M arine & Fire Ins. Co. , 235 F.3d 963, 96 6 ( 5thCir . 2 00 1) ; In te rst ate Towi ng Co. v . S tis si , 717 F.2d 752, 757 ( 2d Cir. 1983); In re Marine Sulphur Quee n , 4 60 F .2 d 8 9, 98 (2 d Ci r. 19 72 ); Afran Transp. C o. v. United States , 435 F .2 d 2 13 , 2 18 (2 d Ci r. 19 70 ). Ye t, the se fo ur c a se s n e ve r e ve n me nti on§ 4 09 , le t a lon e e sta bli sh that district courts cannot apply the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rule based on a § 409 violation. Moreover , re g ard le ss o f o the r c ir c uit s’ pr e c e de nt, ou r c ir c uit ha s r e pe ate dly

a ff irme d th e dis tric t c ou rt s’ us e of § 409 violations to invoke the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rule. See Sunderland Marine , 338 F.3d at 1279; Self Towi ng, Inc. v . Brown Marine Servs., I nc. , 8 37 F .2 d 1 50 1, 15 04 (1 1thCir . 1 98 8) ; Orange Beac h , 680 F.2d at 1380. 13 Based on our precedent, however, the district court determined Superior violated 33 U
. S. C. § 40 9, shi ft edthe pr es um pti on o f fault

ont o S upe ri or

und er the 11 P en nsy lv ani a Ru le , a nd f oundS upe ri or

c oul d no t satis fyit s bu rd en of pr ovi ng i ts § 40 9 vi ola tio n c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the a lli sio n. S upe ri or

arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar lye rr edw he n it f oundS upe ri or

vio la te d § 4 09 a nd, consequent ly , e rroneously applied the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le to Su pe ri or . T he se 12
er ro rs , S upe ri or

a sse rt s, “ ta int edthe c ourt’ s e nti re opi nio n w ith e rr or a nd ultim ately led to its erroneous and in supp ortable conclusion that Superior w as entirely at fault for the accident. ” Se ct ion 409 pr ovi de s in r el ev an t part : “ It sha ll not be la w fu l t o ti e up o r an ch or ve sse ls o r oth er

c ra ft in na vig ab le c ha nne ls i n su ch am an ne r as to pr ev en tSuperior mischar acte rizes our prior holding s when it claims that “[c]ase law 13 interpre ting se ction 409 has uniformly held that wher e ther e is room available for safe pa ssag e of vessels, thereis no violation of 33 U.S.C . § 409.” Our previous ca ses establish that district courts should not

limittheir § 409 analy ses to the question of whe ther a stationary

vessel’s location permitted safe pa ssag e of moving vessels; rathe r, district courts must determine whether a vesse l obstructed navig ation “by ref ere nce to all the relevant fac ts and circ umstances.” Orange Beac h , 6 80 F .2 d at 13 80 ; see also Sunderland Marine , 338 F.3d at 1279. I n Orange Be ach , for example, “[v] essels rounding the bends fr om either dire ction could pass” thedefe ndants’ moore d 14 or obs truc t the pa ssa ge of

oth er ve sse ls o r cr af

t . . . . ” D istri ct

c ourts m ust de te rm ine w he the r a part y vio la te d § 4 09 “ by r ef er en ce to al l the r el ev an t f ac ts a nd circum stances.” Orange Be ach , 680 F . 2d a t 13 80. I n Orange Be ach , f or exam ple, the defendants m oored two barges and a tug such that they blocked 40 perce nt of a wate rway ’s ban k- to -b an k wi dt h a nd a po rti on of t he 12 -fo otna vi ga ti on ch an ne l. Id
. a t 13 78. A ddi tio na lly , the de fe nda nts m oor edthe ir ve sse ls “ in c los e pr oxi mity to [a] pipeline crossin g, at night, betw een two bends in the W aterw ay which w ere about a mile apart .
. . , and rendered navigation by other vessels difficult in an
area wher e they would norm ally be straightening out for the second bend.” Id
. at 1380
. Given these re levant facts and circ um stances, w e concluded the dist rict court did no t clear ly err

by finding th e defe ndants’ m ooring con stitut ed an ob st ru ct io n o f na vi ga ti on , in vi ol at io n o f § 4 09
. Id
. ; see als o Su nde rla nd M

ari ne , 338 F. 3d a t 12 79 ( upho ldi ng a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing that a

statio narybarg e vio la te d § 4 09 b as edon e xpe rt te sti m onythat the barg e’ s lo catio n c re at eda

“ navigatio nal hazard”)
. 13ve sse ls. 68 0 F .2 d at 13 78 . Su c h a vaila bil ity of sa fepa ssa g e didno t e na

blethede fe nd a nts to evade§ 409’s re ach, how ever , beca use, as weexplained above, the othe r re levant fa cts and circ umstances ne verthe less indicated the moor ed vesse ls unlawfully obstructed navigation. Id. at 1380. Simi larly , the fa ct Appellee s’ boat theor etically could havenavig ated a

round Superior’ s Ba rg e did not automatically

prec lude the district court from finding Superior violated § 409.

15 Fo ur sub sid iaryf

ind ing s su pport the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion that S upe ri or obstru ct edna vig at ion in vio la tio n of § 40 9. F ir st, S upe ri or ’ s 12 8- fo ot l ong Barg e blocked roug hly 24 percent of the 528-foot bank-to -bank width of the passageway beneath the Bridge. The parties do no t dispu te this findin g. S econd, Superior tied its Barg e to the Bridg e in a hig hlyuno rthodo x lo catio n, obs truc tin g r ough ly82 fe et ( i. e. , 68 p er ce nt) of

the 120 -f oot tr av el pa ssa ge ge ne ra llya cc ep te d a s th e sa fes t, an d m os t co mm on ly use d, n av ig at io na l ch an ne l fo r rec reat io na l b oa te rs . Se ve ra l l oc al boa te rs te sti fi edthe y sa w the Barg e be fo re sun se t on the da y of the al lis ion a nd w er e “ shoc ke d” to dis co ve r its loc at ion
. A ddi tio na lly , L ie ute na nt Ke vin L. Ivey of the U .S . C oast Guard’ s Marine Sa fetyOf fice stated that if he had know n th e Barg e’ s lo catio n on the e ve nin g of D ec em be r 29, 200 1, he w oul d ha ve br oa dc as t a

loc al notic e to “ al ert the boa tin g pu bli c of the barg e’ s pr es en ce a nd posi tio n in the r ive r. ” T hir d, S upe ri or not onl y le ft the Barg e an d th e T ug i n th is
une xpe ct edloc at ion a ft er nauti ca l t w ili ght , but

a lso f ai le d to li ght

the ve sse ls ad eq ua te ly
. O nlyf

our of the tw el ve li ght s S upe ri or de emedne ce ssaryf

or li ght ing the Barg e an d th e T ug a ctua llyf unc tio ne d on the nig ht o f the a lli sio n, a nd,Superior failed to preserve the lig hts aboard theBa rg e and theTug on Dec ember 29, 14 2001, so the district court neve r had theopportunity to inspect these lig hts. On appeal, Superior contends the district c ourt committed clea r er ror be causeit (1) found Superior disposed of the re le vant l ig hts in b a d f

a itha nd , c on se qu e ntl y , ( 2) dr e w “ a dv e rs e inf e re nc e s a g a ins t Su pe ri or

a s to the condition of the a ctual lig hts that werein use when theacc ident occur red.” See B ashir v. Amtrak , 1 19 F .3 d 9 29 , 9 31 (1 1thCir . 1 99 7) (s tatin g “ a n a dv e rs e inf e re nc e is drawnfr om a party ’s failure to prese rve e videnceonly when the a

bsenceof that evide nce is pre dicated on ba d faith”) . This arg ument lacks merit. The district court’s f indings a bout the lights’ g ener ally

poor condition derived f

rom the testimony

of seve ral witnesse s, not adverseinfere nces a rising f rom Superior’s alleg ed bad- faith spoliation of evidenc e. Furthermor e, althoug h the district court stated “the re is evide nce of bad faith on the part of Superior war ranting sanctions,” it neither expressly held Superior a cted in bad f aith nor expressly

drew adver se infer ence s reg arding the quality of the re levant B arg e and T ug lights. 16 ac co rd ing to se ve ra l w itn es se s, the se f our li ght s w er e old , sc ratc he d, sun -d am ag ed , ru st- sta ine d, dirty , a nd g en er al lyin poor c ondi tio n. I nde ed , one w itn es s

14 described the Barge’ s only non-blin king light as “ look ing lik e a bathroomnitelightor a distant porch ligh t.” Based on these three f indin gs, the district court
reac hed a fourth finding : at the tim e of the allision, the Bar ge and the Tug w ere virtua llyinv isi ble f

ro m the w at er , e lim

ina tin g a ny c ha nc e A ppe lle es migh t ha ve ha d to sa fe lyna vig at e ar oundthe ve sse ls. S upe ri or ’ s c re at ion of suc h a
na vig at ion al ha zard , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed , c onst itu te d avio la tio n of § 40 9. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e de te rm ine the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d a m ple
ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

it s f our sub sid iaryf

ind ing s. F urthe rmor e, c onsi de ri ng a ll the relevant fa cts and circum stances as required under Orange Be ach , w e co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar lye rr w he n it f oundS upe ri or

obs truc te d na vig at ion in vio la tio n of

§ 40 9, a nd, the re fo re , didnot e rr byshi ft ing the pr es um

pti on o f fault17

onto Superior under the P en nsy lv ani a Rule. Nor did th e district court clear ly err w he n it f oundS upe ri or

f ai le d to sa tis fyit s bu rd en of sho w ing it s § 4 09 v iol at ion
co uldnot ha ve be en ac au se of

the a lli sio n. I n f

ac t, a s w e ex pla in i n gr eate r de ta il be low , the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d a m ple e vid en ce to co nc lud e Su pe ri or ’ s § 4 09 vio la tio n w as the a lli sio n’ s sol e c au se . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a cc or din glydidnot cl earl y e rr

w he n it f oundS upe ri or

li ab le to A ppe lle es f

or da m ag es ari sin g f

ro m the al li si on . C. District Court’s Application of the Pe nnsy lva nia Rule to A ppellees As discussed above, if a district court finds each vessel invo lved in an al lis ion ( 1) vio la te d astatut e int en de d to pr ev en t a lli sio ns a nd ( 2) f ai le d to sho w its vio la tio n c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the a lli sio n, the n th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ust determine the parties’ com parative fault and appo rtion liabili ty for dam ages acco rd in gl y . Se e P ark er

T ow ing , 794 F . 2d a t 59 4. A ft er appl y ing the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le to Su pe ri or a nd c onc lud ing S upe ri or ’ s § 4 09 v iol at ion w as a cause of the a lli sio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d S upe ri or ’ s arg um en t tha t the P en nsy lv ani a Rule also applied to Appellees. F irst, the district court assum ed Br oc k vi ola te d 33 C. F. R. § 95
. 020 an d F lorida S ta tut es § 32 7. 35, the F lorida a ndAp pe lle e s c on c e dethat 33 C.F .R. § 9 5. 02 0 andF lorida Statut e s § 32 7. 35 are“ ru le [s] 15 intended to pre vent [allisi ons]” for purposes of the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rule. Se e The Pe nn sy lv an ia , 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) at 136. As we e x plained in Footnote 6, su pr a , the parties’ expert witnesses pre sented 16 c on fl ic tin g op ini on s a s to wh e the r B ro c k’ s B AL a c tually e xce e de d th e F lorida

a ndfe de ral li mit s at th e tim e of

thea lli sio n. Th e dis tric t c ou rt didno t e xpre ssl y

re so lvethi s d isp ute . Ins te a d, it (1) a ssumed Br ock violated 33 C.F .R. § 95.020 and Florida Statutes § 327.35, and (2) f ound Appellee s nevertheless satisfied their bur den under the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rule of showing Br ock’s vio latio n c ou ld n ot h a vebe e n a c aus e of thea lli sio n. Con tr ary

to S up e ri or ’s a sse rtion s, thi s analytical appr oach did not constitute an e rror of law. See Self Towi ng , 837 F.2d at 1504 n.7 (a pp ro vin g thedis tric t c ou rt ’s app ro a c h o f ( 1) a ssu min g a ve sse l vi olate d a

statut e int e nd e d to preve nt allisions and (2) finding this vessel nevertheless satisfied its burden unde r the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rule of showing its viol ation could not have be en a c ause of the allision). Ag ain, oncea district court finds a vessel violated a statute intended to pre vent 17 allisions, the “burden r ests upon the ship of showing not merely that her f ault might not have be e n o neof

thec aus e s, or

that it pr ob ably wa s n ot, bu t th at it could not have be en .” The Pe nn sy lv an ia , 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) at 136 (empha sis added). Superior asserts the district court applied the wr ong standard unde r the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rule because it repe atedly stated B rock’ s leg al intox ication “ was no t a ca use of the allisi on,” rather than stating Br ock’s leg al intox ication “ could not have be en a ca use of the allisi on.” In other wor ds, Superior invites us to transform “could not havebeen” into a talismanic phrasedistrict courts must recite to c orre ctly apply the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rul e . We de c lin e to d o s o. As wee xplain b e low , th e dis tric t se t f orth myri a d f

a c ts and finding s supporting its conc lusion that Appellees satisfied the ir Pennsylv ania Rule burden of pr oo f. Th us , e ve n th ou g h th e dis tric t c ou rt ne ve r u tte re d th e ph ra se “ c ou ld n ot h a vebe e n” in i ts memorandum opinion, it did not fail to apply the Pe nn sy lv an ia Rul e a g a ins t A pp e lle e s. 18 fe de ra l bo at ing -u nde r- the -i nf lue nc e (B U I) pr ovi sio ns, a nd appl ie d th e 15 P en nsy lv ani a Rule against Appellees. Sec ond, the district court found Appellees 16
ne ve rthe le ss s at isf

ie d th ei r bur de n of

sho w ing Br oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of

the a lli sio n. B as edon this f ind ing , it de te rm ine d “ an y 17 evidentiary presum

ption cre ated [under the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le ] byBr oc k’ s bl ood al co hol le ve l .
. . is ove rc om e an d va nis he s du e to the ove rw he lming e vid en ce to the contrary .”19

Superior forw ards two prim arychallenges to the dist rict court’ s finding that Br oc k’ s vi ola tio n of

33 C
. F. R. § 95
. 020 an d F lorida S ta tut es § 32 7. 35 c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of

the a lli sio n. F ir st, a t or al arg um en t, S upe ri or c la imedthat, giv en Br oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion , it w as “ im poss ibl e, ” as am atte r of

la w , f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o f

indA ppe lle es sa tis fi edthe ir e vid en tiarybur de n un de r the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le
. S ec ond, S upe ri or arg ue s th at , e ve n if

it w as le ga llypos sib le fo r A ppe lle es to sa tis fythe ir bur de n, the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar lye rr edw he n it f ound Br oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the a lli sio n. W e w ill ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts in tu rn . 1. Str ing en t, but

No t I nsur m ount abl e, P re sum

pti on o f F aul t U nde r th e Pe nnsy lva nia

R ule As w e stated above, the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le “ is n ot a rule of li ab ili ty , but shi ft s th e bur de n of

pr oof a s to c au sa tio n. T his bur de n is stric t, but it is not insurm ount able.” Orange Be ach , 680 F. 2d at 138 1 (citations omitted). F or m ore tha n 50 y ears , w e ha ve r ep eate dlystate d: [T ] he S upr eme Co urt, in [ Th e P en nsy lv ani a ] , didnot int en d to establish a hard and fast rule that everyvessel guilt y of a statutory fault ha s th e bur de n of

e stabli shi ng tha t i ts f

au lt co uldnot

bya ny str et ch of the im ag ina tio n ha ve ha d a ny c au sa l r el at ion to the collisio n, no m atter how speculative, im probable, or r em ote.20

Co m pani a de M

ade ras de Ca iba rie n, S. A . v . T he Q ue en sto n H

ei ght s , 220 F . 2d 120, 122 –23 (5 th C ir
. 195 5) ; se e als o Se lf v. G re at Lak es D re dge & D oc k Co . , 832 F. 2d 1 540, 155 5 ( 11th C ir
. 198 7) ; Orange Be ach , 680 F . 2d a t 13 81; Inter-Cities Navigatio n Corp. v. United States , 608 F . 2d 1 079, 108 2–83 ( 5th Ci r. 197 9) ; Ch ina U nio n L ine s, L td. v . A . O . A nde rse n & Co . , 364 F. 2d 76 9, 782 (5th Cir. 1966); P ark er B ros . & Co . v . D e F

ore st , 221 F. 2d 37 7, 380–81 (5th Cir. 1955 ). In other
w or ds, dis tr ic t c ourts m aynot pla ce a n in surm ount ab le pr es um pti on o f fault

on ve sse ls tha t vi ola te statut es int en de d to pr ev en t a lli sio ns. D es pit e our

lon gst an din g pr ec ed en t, S upe ri or , a t or al arg um en t, r ep eate dly argued it wa s “ im

poss ible,” given Brock’ s intox icated state, for the district court to find Appellees satisfied their P en nsy lv ani a Ru le bur de n. T he gr av amen of thi s ar gumen t i s th at , due to Br oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion , the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d ha ve pla ce d a n in surm ount ab le pr es um pti on o f fault

on A ppe lle es und er

the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le an d a pp or ti on ed th em a pe rcen ta ge of t he li ab il it y . Af ter re viewing the relevant case law , w e re j ect Superior’ s contentio n that district courts must alway s apportion som e fault to a vessel whose operator wa s le ga llyint oxi cate d a t the ti m e of the a lli sio n. N o c ir cu it ha s e ve r ex pr es slyhe ld a BU I- la w vio la tio n gi ve s rise to an ins ur m ount ab le pr es um pti on o f fault

und er the P en nsy lv ani a Rule. Indeed, to the best of our kn owledge, no circuit has even21

im plicitly rea ched such a conclusio n. G iven the apparent non-exist ence of such pe rs ua siv e au tho ri ty , w e ar e es pe ci al lydis inc lin edto es tabli sh a rule m aking it

“ im poss ible,” a s a m atter of la w, for district courts to find a boat driver’ s legal in to xi cat io n c ou ld no t h av e b een a cau se of a n a ll is io n. Under Compania de Maderas de Caib arien a nd i ts p ro ge ny , w e thu s co nc lud e BU I- la w vio la tio ns— lik e al l othe r vio la tio ns o f statut es int en de d to pr ev en t a lli sio ns— giv e ri se to a string en t, but not ins ur m ount ab le , pr es um

pti on o f fault
. N ee dle ss t o sa y , w e co nde mn th e da nge ro us p ra ct ic e of boa tin g un de r the influence. W e also rec ogni ze that, when a legally -intoxicated bo at driver’ s vessel al lid es w ith astatio naryve sse l, the boa t drive r’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion w ill ge ne ra lly be a co nt rib ut or y cau se of t he all is io n. Yet , generally doe s no t mea n always
. In
rare cases, a district court m ay find, af ter carefully considering all th e evidence, tha t a boa t drive r’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion sim plyc oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the al lis ion
. C ontraryto Su pe ri or ’ s r ep eate d a sse rt ion s, the re fo re , it w as not le ga lly

“ im poss ibl e” f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o f

indA ppe lle es sa tis fi edthe ir bur de n of

pr oof under the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le
. 2. D ist ric t Court ’s F ind ing tha t B roc k’ s L eg al I ntoxi ca tio n Coul d N

ot H av e B ee n a C

ause of the A lli sio n22

T his appe al inv olv es one of the r ar e ca se s w he re adis tr ic t c ourt ha d a m ple
ev ide nc e w ith w hic h to de te rm ine aboa t drive r’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion c oul d no t ha ve b ee n a c au s e o f t h e a l l i s i o n . F o u r p ri m ar y fi n d i n g s s u p p o rtt h e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s
co nc lus ion on this iss ue . F ir st, Br oc k ha ndl edthe Bo at in suc h aw aya s to ind ic at e his m oto r ski lls , m en ta l f ac ult ie s, a nd c ontro l of

the Bo at w er e not im paired due to into xication. A ppellees’ expert w itness, Captain Ge orge Kirk Gr einer, Jr. , supported this con clusion , te stify ing Brock’ s handlin g of the Boat w as reas on ab le fora m ari ne r an d h is in to xi cat io n d id no t p la y a ro le in th e al li si on . Se co nd, a s B ro ck

be ga n to appr oa ch the Bridg e, he slo w edthe Bo at ’ s sp ee d f ro m 34 m ph to 2 2 m

ph—th e safe st speed for m aneuvering the Boat. U nrefuted expert witness testim ony bolsters this finding. Third, Brock perf ectly aim ed the Boat such that it would h ave passed safelyunder the Bridge if not for the unexpected loc at ion of

the Barg e. T his f

ind ing dr aw s su pport f

ro m not onl y the te sti m onyof Captain Gr einer and A ppellee Robert Bow ers, but also th e re levant phy sical
ev ide nc e an d mea sur emen ts. F ourth, a nd m ost im porta nt t o ou r de ci sio n, passengers on th e Boat w ho (1) we re not legally intox icated and (2) looked ahead
w ith ac om

ple te lyuno bstru ct edvie w of the upc oming Bridg e co uldnot se e the virtually invisi ble Barge until it wa s im poss ible to avoid the allision o r even sig nif ic an tlyr ed uc e the f

or ce of the im pa ct . F or e xa m ple , A ppe lle e W hit e, w hoSuperior ar g ues that, eve n if Br ock’s intoxi cation could not havebeen a causeof the 18 a lli sio n, hewa s n e ve rthe le ss c omp arativ e ly ne g lig e nt f

or faili ng to g ivesa fe ty

ins truc tio ns to h is passeng ers, de signate a lookout, re quire a ll of the passeng ers to we ar lifejacke ts, and take 23 w a s s i t t i n g o n t h e B o a t ’s b o w , t e s t i f i e d t h a tf r o m th e t i me t h e B ar g e b e c a me vis ibl e to the ti m e of

the a lli sio n, he bare lyha d e noug h ti m e to s hout

“ Barg e—Jum

p! ” an d im

m ed ia te lyr oll ove rb oard
. Whe n he tum ble d in to the wate r, th e Bo atwas a lre ad yso clo se to th e Bar ge th athi s b od y st ru ckth e Bar ge . Given these four keyfindings , e ach of w hich rests on su fficient r ecord evidence, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud edBr oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of th e al li si on . A ft er c onsi de ri ng a ll of

the e vid en ce , w e hol d th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t cl earl y e rr

w he n it de te rm ine d A ppe lle es sa tis fi edthe ir bur de n of

pr oof und er the P en nsy lv ani a Ru le
. I n f

ac t, the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d a m ple e vid en ce to supp ort i ts
co nc lus ion that the a lli sio n’ s so le c au se w as “ Su pe ri or ’ s da nge ro us p la ce m en t, im pr ope r lig hti ng, a nd f

ai lur e to m ak e an y a tte m

pt t o a le rt the Co as t G uardor

to
w arn th e boa tin g pu bli c tha t a hug e, bla ck , unl it Barg e an d T ug w oul d be blo cking tr av el c ha nne ls p opul ar

w ith loc al boa te rs a t ni ght
. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt thus didnot cl earl y e rr

w he n it f oundBr oc k’ s le ga l i nto xic at ion c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the a lli sio n a nd, the re fo re , didnot e rr byr ef usi ng t o apportio n li ab ili tyf or da m ag es be tw ee n S upe ri or a nd A ppe lle es . 18va

ri ou s o the r s a fe ty

me a su re s. Ad dition a lly , Su pe ri or c on te nd s A pp e lle e s Ro be rt B ow e rs , Cy nthia Tipton, and J immie W hite wer e compa ratively neg lige nt for riding on the B oat’s bow. Af te r c are fu lly

re vie wi ng there c or d, wec on c lud e thedis tric t c ou rt didno t c le arl y

e rr wh e n it found B rock, B ower s, Tipton, and Whit e neither cause d the ac cident nor c ontributed to the extent o f t h ei r o wn i n

j u ri es . W e t h u s re

j ec tS u p er i o r’ s al t er n at i v e argu m en t s fo r a l l o ca t i n g a p er ce n t age of fault to one or more Appe llees. 24 D. A ppe lle es T

am m y B ow er s’ and Jim m ie W

hit e’ s Eco nom ic and

No nEc onomic Dam ages Fi na lly , S upe ri or

a sse rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c le arlye rr edbya w ar din g Appellees T ammy Bowe rs and Jimmie White dam ages so excessive as to “ shock t h e c o n s ci en ce .” As s u g g es t ed i n Pa rtII , “ i n an ad mi ra l t y ac t i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs of

da m ag es are m atte rs of

f ac t a nd s houl d be a ff

ir m edif not c le ar ly erroneous.” Fla. E. Co ast R y. v . R ev ilo Co rp. , 637 F. 2d 10 60, 1067 (5th Cir. 1981 ). When determining whether a district court’ s dam ages aw ard constituted clear err or, “ we m

ust be especially car eful about reversing finding s of fac t based on the dis trict court’ s evaluation o f live w itness testim ony because the district court is ‘ better positio ned’ to evaluate such evidence.” Li ndsey v. Na vi sta r I nt’ l. Tr ansp . Co rp. , 15 0 F .3d 13 07 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A s a n in iti al m atte r, w e not e the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t st at e the spe ci fi c fin di ng s u nd erl y in g B owe rs ’ an d Whi te ’s eco no mic an d n on -eco no mic da m ag es . G en er al ly , w he re adis tr ic t c ourt f ai ls t o m ak e suf

fi ci en t f ind ing s to pe rm

it ad eq ua te appe llate r ev ie w of ac la im f or da m ag es , ar em an d f

or the appr opr ia te25

finding s is the norm al procedure. Se e Se lf , 832 F . 2d a t 15 49. W e w ill not r em an d fo r ap pr opr ia te f

ind ing s, how ev er , “ if

ac om ple te und er sta ndi ng o f the iss ue s is poss ibl e in the abse nc e of se parate f

ind ing s a nd i f the re is a suf fi ci en t ba sis f

or [o ur ] co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts ” o f th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d am ag es award
. Se e id
. Be cause the r ec or d pr ovi de s us ac om ple te und er sta ndi ng o f the iss ue s a nd a suf fi ci en t ba sis f

or c onsi de ri ng the m erits of the da m ag es a w ar de d to Bo w er s a nd W hit e, w e ne ednot

r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or a ddi tio na l f

ind ing s. I nst ea d,
we will re view the r ecord to determine whether the district court clearlyerr ed
w he n it a w ar de d to ta l da m ag es of $1, 249, 911. 23 t o T am

my Bo w er s a nd $3,317,277 to Jimmie White. 1. Ta m m

y B ow er s Bo w er s’ e xpe rt

w itn es s, D r. M. W . K ilg or e, te sti fi edthat, a s ar es ult of the al lis ion , Bo w er s su ff

er edali ga m en t t ear in h er r igh t hi p; a

sc ar on h er li p a nd righ t ch ee k; t w o di sk h ernia tio ns i n he r ce rv ic al spi ne ; m usc ulo ske le ta l a nd s of

t- tis sue inj ur ie s in he r ne ck

a nd l ow er

ba ck ; a nd a

c onc uss ion , w hic h ha s gi ve n r ise to
re cu rring migr ai ne he ad ac he s. A cc or din g to a nothe r of Bo w er s’ e xpe rt

w itn es se s, Pr of es sor P au l M ark M as on, the se inj ur ie s c re at edthe ne edf or atot al pr es en tva lue a m ount

of $42 3, 834. 28 i n f

utu re m ed ic al e xpe nse s. A ft er he aring thi s te sti m ony , the dis tr ic t c ourt a w ar de d B ow er s $2 49, 911. 23 i n e co nomic26

da m ag es —an am ou ntco ns id erab ly lowerth an Bo wers ’ ex pe rt wi tn es s’s es ti m at e. Consid ering the testim ony of Bow ers’ expert w itnesses, we conclude the dist rict
co ur t’s ec on om ic da m ag es award was n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. As f or non-economic dam ages, B ower s and/or her expert w itnesses testified ab out suc h is sue s a s ( 1) the hard shi p sh e en dur edw hil e fi na nc ia llysup portin g a nd caring for her

husband and their two children during her husband ’ s prolon ged
re co ve ryf

ro m his de bil itatin g, a lli sio n- re la te d in j ur ie s, ( 2) the ong oin g hi p, ne ck , an d ba ck pa in a nd m

igr ai ne he ad ac he s st em

ming f ro m he r inj ur ie s, ( 3) the pe rm an en t di sf

igu re m en t of

he r lip a nd righ t c he ek , a nd ( 4) the pe rm an en t ligam ent tear in her right hip that will likely continu e to deteriorate. T he district
co urt a w ar de d he r $1, 000, 000 in n on- ec onom ic da m ag es . G ive n th e te sti m ony about th e hardship and su ffering sh e experience d, and continues to experience, as a re sul t of the a lli sio n, w e ca nnot

sa y the dis tr ic t c ourt c ommitt edc le ar e rr or in
aw ar din g he r thi s no n- ec onom ic da m ag es a m ount . 2. Ji m m ie W

hit e A cc or din g to W hit e’ s e xpe rt w itn es se s, D r. Ch ri sto phe r Ro be rt s, the a lli sio n caused him

to suffer such short-term injuries a s a broken rib, a cer vical neck inj ur y , a nd a

f or eh ea d la ce ratio n. Mo re ove r, D r. Ro be rt s te sti fi edthat Whit e sus ta ine d pe rm an en t ne ur olo gic al inj ur ie s to his lum bar spi ne , w hic h c au se him27

ch ro nic , pe rs ist en t pa in i n vari ous part s of his bod y a nd n ec es sit at e lif el ong pa in
m an ag emen t tre at m en t. P ro fe sso r Ma son es tim at edW hit e’ s pa in m an ag emen t tr eatmen ts f

or his ne ur olo gic al inj ur ie s e qua te to a pr es en t- va lue c ost of $1,939,781 in future medical expenses. F ollowing th is testim ony , the district
co urt a w ar de d Whit e $1, 317, 277 in e co nomic da m ag es —a ga in, af igu re w el l be low W hit e’ s e xpe rt

w itn es s’ s e sti m at e. W e de te rm ine the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t cl earl y err i n a ward in g h im th is eco no mic da m ag es am ou nt . T ur nin g to W hit e’ s no n- ec onom ic da m ag es , w e not e W hit e te sti fi edabout (1 ) the tr au m a he e xpe ri en ce d du ri ng the a lli sio n ( e. g. , r eg ai nin g c onsc iou sne ss unde rw at er

a nd h av ing to ove rc om e pa in, ble ed ing , a nd c oldte m pe ratur es to sw im to safety ); (2) the loss of independence and frustration stemming from his phy sical inabil ityto pur sue his pr ev iou s c ar ee r as ase lf -e m plo y eddry w al l i nst al le r; a nd (3 ) the suf

fe ri ng a sso ci at edw ith ali fe time of se ve re , c onst an t ne ur olo gic al pa in tha t a ff lic ts m ult ipl e part s of

his bod y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a w ar de d Whit e $2, 000, 000 in n on- ec onom ic da m ag es , a nd w e co nc lud e the r ec or d c ont ai ns a m ple
ev id en ce t o s up po rt t hi s amoun t. In summ ary , a lthou gh the dis trict court’ s total dam ages aw ards are subs ta nti al , “ in v ie w of

a ll the c ir cu m sta nc es , w e ca nnot sa y that the dis tr ic t c ourt, which hear d all of the testim ony and saw a ll of the evidence, committed clear28

erro r” i n a ward in g $ 1,2 49 ,91 1.2 3 t o B owe rs an d $ 3,3 17 ,27 7 t o Whi te . See Lindsey , 150 F . 3d a t 13 19. W e the re fo re r ej ec t S upe ri or ’ s c ha lle nge s to Bo w er s’
an d Whi te ’s to ta l d am ag es . IV. CONCLUSION T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar lye rr w he n it f oundS upe ri or

vio la te d § 4 09
an d f ai le d to sa tis fyit s P en nsy lv ani a Ru le bur de n of sho w ing it s vi ola tio n c oul d not ha ve be en ac au se of

the a lli sio n. N or

didthe dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar lye rr w he n it found Appellees m et their P en nsy lv ani a Ru le bur de n of sho w ing Br oc k’ s vi ola tio n of 33 C
. F. R. § 95
. 020 an d F lorida S ta tut es § 32 7. 35 c oul d no t ha ve be en ac au se of the a lli sio n. T he re fo re , the r ec or d c ont ai ns a m ple e vid en ce to supp ort the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion that S upe ri or w as sol el y li ab le f

or the a lli sio n a nd A ppe lle es ’ r es ult ing inj ur ie s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso didnot c le ar lye rr

in
aw ar d i n g t o t al d amag es o f $ 1 ,2 4 9 ,9 1 1 .2 3 t o Bo we rs an d $ 3 ,3 1 7 ,2 7 7 t o Whi t e. We
acco rd in gl y affi rm

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t. AFFIR MED.