Pursuant toFifth Circuit Rule47 .5, the court has determined that this opinion should * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule47 .5.4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31194 Su m m ar y Cal endar

B U T T E R F L YT R A N S P O R T A T IO N C O R P ; S A M O S S T E A M S H IP C O , S .A ., P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n ts

v. B E R T U C C I I N D U S T R IA L S E R V IC E S L L C , D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 04- C V

- 3533

B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * But t e r f l yT r a n s p o r t a t i o n Co r p o r a t i o n a n dS a m o s S t e a m s h i p Co m p any (“t he O w ner s” ) ow n ed the ve sse lM
. V
. M a ya , an dall eg ed tha t B ertu cci In d u stri al S erv i c es ( “ B er t ucc i” ) fai l ed t o f ul f i l la c ont r ac tt o c l ean t he hol ds of t he M aya, th ere b y d a m a gin g t h e O w n ers. A ft er B ertu cci p rev a i l ed on su m m a ryj u d gm en t, t h e O w n ers successf u l l y ap pea l ed an d h ad t h e case rem an ded t o t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t
. The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s b e nc h t r i alr e s o lve d i n fav o ri n B ert uc c i , a nd t he O w n e r s n o w a p p e a la g a i n . We a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31194

2 I
. FAC T UAL A ND P RO CE DUR AL B AC KGR OUND T h e parti es do not di spu t e t h i s c ase’ s m ater i alfact s, w h ic h t h e pri or o p in io n d e ta ils in fu ll. B u t t erf l y Tran sp. Corp. v. B ert u cciIn d u s. S ervs . , 2 4 3 F. App’ x 16 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) (unpub l i s he d)
. The di s put e c o nt i nue s t o r e vo lve a r o und B ert u cci ’ s bid— “W e off er a n o cu re n o p ay pri ce of $14 5, 000
. 00 to obt ai n passes f orl oadi ng f

orU SD Aand N C B
. W e es t i m at e t he pr oj ec tw i l lr equi r e 5 t o 6 days f or c lea n in g , bu tdo n otgu aran t ee t h e nu m ber of day s. Th i s r ate i n cl u des a
c r ane barge t o pl ac e t he m an- l i f t s i n e ac h c ar go ho l d a s w e l la s t he g e ara nd chem i cal s requ i red du ri n g m obi l i zati on . ”

— an d t h e O w n ers’ “ C on f i rm atio n of O r de r”

— “ [W ] e he r e byc o nf i r m o ura c c e pt anc e of B e r t uc c i
. . . t o c ar r y o ut
c l eani ng and pre par i ng al ls hi p’ s c ar go hol ds ( 8 c ar go hol ds) f org r ai n l oadi ng. W o r k t o c o mm e n c e i mm e d i a t e l ya n dt o t e r mi n a t e wi t h i s s u i n gNC B a n dUS DA h ol ds acceptance cer t i f i cat e f or l oad i n g grai n s. ” A f t er t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed B ert u cci ’ s m ot i on forsu m m ary j u dg m en t , the O w n ers ap pea l ed, a n d a pa n elof t hi s Cour tr e ve r s e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de ra nd r e m and e d t he c as e t o t he di st ri ct court f

or determ i n ati on of t h e contract u al i n t en t of t h e pa rt i es, an d f or c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e im p lie dw a r r a n tycla im
. I d. The di s t r i c tc o ur tt he n he l d a ben ch tr i al , con cl u ded tha tB ert u cciw as not l i able t o t h e O w n ers f or dam ages, a n de n te r e da fin a l ju d g m e n t fr o m w h ic h th e O w n e r s n o w a p p e a l. I I
. DI S CUS S I ON A
. I n t en tof

t h e P art i es The O w ne r s f

i r s ta s s e r tt hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur terred i n r ul i ng t hatt he pa r t i e s di d no ti nt e nd f o rB e r t uc c it o re m o ve al lre s i due s of pr i o rc ar go e s . The di st r i c t c our t c onc l uded t hat t he par t i es i nt ended t o obl i gat e Ber t ucc it o r em oveN o. 08- 31194

3 t h e am ou n tof

res i du e necessary t o o b tai n t h e requi si t e operati n g cert i f i cat es. T h e O w n ers contend t h at B ert u cci h ad an obl i gati on t o rem ove al lcargo r esi du es f rom the h ol ds. W e revi ew t h e f i n di n gs of

factf rom a ben ch tr i alf

or c l ear err or, andw i l l“ r e ve r s e o nl y i f w e ha ve a de f

i ni t e a nd f

i r m c o nvi c t i on tha t a m i s t ak e h a s be en com m i tted.” Can al B arge Co. v. T orco O i lCo. , 22 0 F
. 3 d37 0 , 37 5 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T o s u p p o r t t h e ir a s s e r tio n , th e O w n e r s re lyo n th e te s tim o n yo f C a p ta in G eorge M arou l i s, w h o t est i f i ed t h at t h e i n t en ded m ean i n g of t h e C on f i rm ati on of O rd er “w a s n ot on l y to g et the certi fi ca tes i ssu ed , bu t to cl ea n the h olds u p to t he g r ai n s t and ar ds
. ” H e f ur t he re xp l ai ne d, W e b el i e ve t hatBer t uc c i
. . . und e r s t o o d whatw e m e antw h en s ay i ng t h a twe we r e i n n e e do f USDA c e r t i f

i c a t e . W h a twe mean t w a s to cl ean t h e hol ds, al lof t h e hol ds f

rom t op to bott om , t o a c e r ta in e x te n t, to th e le v e l th a t t h e yw o u ldb e a p p r o p r ia te fo rg r a in l oad i n g w i t h no cargo da m age. I n co nt r as t , C ap t ai n A l e xa nde rD ubl e nny kh t e s t i f i e d t hatonc e t he U SD A and N CB i s s ue d t he c e r t i f i c at e s a ppr o vi ng t he ho l ds f o rg r ai n l oad i n g, ne i t he rt he
s hi p’ s c r e w no rBer t uc c iw o ul d b e o bl i ga t e d t o c o nduc tf ur t he rc l e ani ng o n a ny o f th e h o ld s. C a p tain D u b l en n yk h also testi fi ed tha t he w a s n ot go i n g to do u b l e - c h e c k t h e c l e a n l i n e s s o f t h e M a y a ’ s c a r g o h o l d s a f t e r h e r e c e i ve d t he cert i f i cat es app rovi n g t h e h o l ds f or grai n l oad i n g. C ap t ai n E l i as K atsaros
c o n fir m e dth a t B e r tu c c i’ s w o r k w o u lde n do n c e th e U S D Aa n dN C B is s u e dth e ir cert i f i cat es, an d h e al so s t ated, “W h en t h e cl ean in gfirm g et s t h e passes f rom [ t h e] U S D Aan d N C B , t h at’ s t h e t i m e w h en al w ays the ir s e rvi ces are term i n a ted
. ” E ve n th ou gh the testi m on y o f C a p tain M a rou l i s m a y co n fl i ct w i th t h e t est i m on y of C a p ta in D u bl en n yk h an d C ap t ai n K atsaros , “ [ w ] e cann otN o. 08- 31194

4 second gu ess t h e di st ri c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o bel i eve on e w i t n ess’ [ s] t est i m on y over a n o th e r ’ s o r to d is c o u n t a w itn e s s ’ [ s ] te s tim o n y .” M oreover, B ert u cci ’ s w ork unde rt he c o nt r ac tw as “ t o c o m m e nc e i m m e di at e l y andt o t e r m i nat e w i t h i s s ui ng N C B an d U S D Ahol ds acceptance cer t i f i ca te fo r loa d i n g grai n s. . . . w i t h t op pri ori t y t o redu ce del ay f or t h i s cl ean i n g operati on . ” In l i gh t of t h e ev id e n ce favori n g B ert u cci ’ s i n t erp re ta tion, w e are not convinced that t h e di st ri ctcourt
c o m m i t t e d a ny c l e are r r o rw he n i tr ej e c t e d t he O w ne r s ’po s i t i o n. B
. I m pl i ed W arran t y of W orkm an l i ke P erf

orm an ce T h e O w n ers i n i t i al l y cl ai m t h at th e di st ri ctconst rued t h e i m pl i ed
w ar r ant y o f

w ork m a n l i k e p erform a n ce er ron eo u sly, em p h as i zi ng t hatm or e than
m er e r eas onabl e c ar e i s r equi r ed. W e r evi ew t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s l egal d e te r m in a tio n s d e n o v o . S ee Can al B arge Co. , 2 2 0 F
. 3 d a t 3 7 5
. E v e n t h o u g h we h ave qu est i on ed the propri et y of e m p l oyi n g t h e i m pl i ed w arran t y of
w o r k m a n lik e p e r fo r m a n c e a s th e m o d e l fo r in d e m n ific a tio n in
n o n -p e r s o n a l-inju r yco n te x ts , se e R o ck w ell In t’l Co rp . v . M / V In co tra n s S

p irit , 9 9 8 F .2 d3 1 6 , 3 1 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); B osnor, S
. A
. D E C

. V
. v. Tug L
. A
. B arri os , 796 F
. 2d 776 , 785 –86 ( 5th C i r. 198 6 ) , w e need not add ress t h at questi on here bec ause , as sum i ng argue ndo t hatthe w ar r ant y s houl d appl y, w e f i nd no c l ear e r r o rin th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s h o ld in gth a tB e r t u c c i fa il e dto s a t is fyth e w a r r a n t y ’s
e le m e n ts
. T o rec over f

rom a contr act or f

or breach of

an i m pl i ed w arra n t y of
w ork m a n li k e p e rfo rm a n ce , a sh ip o w n e r m u st p ro v e th a t th e con t ract or breached th e w a r r a n ty , a n dth a t t h e b r e a c h p r o x im a te lyca u s e dth e inju r y . Pa rf ai tv. Jah n cke Serv. , I

n c. , 4 84 F. 2d2 96 , 3 02 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 3)
. M o r e s pe c i f i c al l y, t he
e s s e n c e o f a c o n t r a c t o r ’s o b li g a t io n is th e d u t y t o p e r fo r m th e c o n t r a c t ’sN o. 08- 31194

The Owners fail to expl ainhow or if the “reaso nab le care” standar d differs from our 1 standard re quirin g proper performance un der a contract. Specifically , the di strict court stated that an implie d warrantyof workmanlike performance m ean s “performing work properly under [the] contract.” The district court als o stated thatunder the implie d warrantyof workmanlike performance Bertucciowed the Owners “aduty of re ason able care in performing anyservices,” and the court co ncluded that B ertucci p er f or m edi ts contractu al duties “with sufficient amount of care.” These statements show that the district court defined the Implied warranty of workmanlike performance as performin g contractu al duties “properly” and with “rea so n ab lec are .” Wefin d unpersu asive the Owner s’ a ssertionth at the district court deemed Murphy’s 2 testimony credible“in an obviou s attempt to insulate its findin gs from appell ate review.” See 5 ob l i ga ti on s “pro p erly a n dsafely. ” Pa rfa it , 484 F. 2d at30 1 ( q u ot i ng Ry an St e v e dori ng Co. v . Pan-At lant i cSt e am s hi p Co r p. , 3 5 0 U .S
. 1 2 4 , 1 3 3 (19 5 6 )); G ar ne r v . Ci t i e s Se r v . Tankers C o r p. , 45 6 F
. 2 d47 6 , 48 1 ( 5 th C i r. 19 7 2 ). In p a r tic u la r , Ry an c o nc l ude d a pa r t y c o ul d no tb r e ac h t he dut y i f i tpe r f o r m e d t he “e s s e n c e ” o r“in e s c a p a b le e le m e n ts ” o f a co n tr a c t. Ryan S t evedori ng Co. , 350 U
. S
. at 133
. T h u s, B ert u cci w as obl i gated t o properl y perf orm “ t h e ess en ce” or

“ i n escapab l e el em en t s” of i t s c on t ractw ith t h e O w n ers, w h i ch i n t h i s c ase i nvo lve d c l e ani ng t he ho l ds e no ugh t o o bt ai n t he n eces s ar y c e r t i f i c at e s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d bo t h a ge ne r als t and ar d o f reasonab l e c ar e a nd t he contract ’ s s peci f

i c obl i gati on s w h en i tconsi dered how w el l B ert u cci h ad cl ean ed t h e hol ds an d w h et h er B ert u ccirem oved enou gh res i du e t o obtai n t h e necessary c e r t if ic a t e s . A c c o r d in g ly , t h e O w n e r s ’ a r g u m e n tr e g a r d in gth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s

1 fa ilu r e to a p p lyth e a p p r o p r ia te le g a l s ta n d a r dfo rth e im p lie dw a r r a n tyfa ils
. T h e O w n ers n ext contend t h e di st ri ct court erred i n f i n di n g t h at B ert u cci f ul f i l l e d t he w ar r ant y, a n i s s ue t hatw e re vi e w f o rc l e are r r o rb y givi ng “ due
r e g a r d ” t o t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a s s e s s m e n t o f w itn e s s e s ’cr e d ib ility , CanalB arge Co. , 2 20 F. 3da t3 75 ( quo t i ng Fed
. R. Ci v. P. 5 2( a) )
. The di st ri ctcou r tf o und
c r edibl e t he t es t i m o nyo f Be r t uc c i ’ s l e a ds uper vi so r , Law r enc e M urphy, w ho had 2N o. 08- 31194

Ande rson v. City of Bess em er City, N.C. , 4 7 0U .S
. 5 6 4 , 5 7 5( 1 9 8 5). 6 be e n i nvo lve d p e r s o nal l y i n t he s hi p c l e ani ng bus i ne s s si n ce 1 96 3. M ur phy te s tifie dto th e e q u ip m e n t, m a te r ia l s , la b o r , a n dcle a n in go p e r a tio n s u s e d in prepa ri n g t h e M aya ’ s c argo h ol ds f or i n spect i on ; t est i f

i ed that he an d h i s c rew in s p e c te da n dcle a n e d“e v e r yin c h ” o f a ll th e M a y a ’ s ca r g o h o ld s , in c lu d in gh o ld
num bert w o, t he o nl y o ne o f the ei ghtcar go hol ds i n w hi c h dam aged c ar go w as f ound; t es t i f

i ed t hatt he c apt ai n, c hi ef m at e, or a r epr es ent at ive of t he M aya w as pres en tw i t h hi m w he n e va l uat i ng a c ar go ho l d’ s c o ndi t i o n a f t e rc l e ani ng; a nd de s c r ibe d t he t e s t i ng andc l e ani ng o pe r at i on s u se d o n a n a r e a i n whi c h he dou bted th e area’ s c l ean l i n ess. B ased on t h i s evi den ce, t h e di st ri ctcourt
con cl u d ed tha t B ertu cci cl ea n ed the h olds “w i th su ff i ci en t am ou n t of

care . ” Fi nal l y, af

t erdet er m i ni ng t hatt he par t i es i nt ended f orB er t ucc it o r em ove en ou gh res i du e t o obtai n t h e n ecess ary cert i f i cat es, t h e di st ri ct court consi dered t h e i ssuan ce of

U S D Aan d N C B cer t i f i cat es as evi den ce t h at B ert u ccisat i sf i ed t he w ar r ant y. Th e O w ner s ar gue t hatthe t w o U SD As urve yor s c oul d nothave perf orm ed an a deq u ate i n spect i on of the eight hol ds i n one h ou r, an d that “ t h ere w a s n o d i rect ev i d en ce of w h a t t h e insp ectors actu a l l y d i dor d i dn ot d o .” H ow ever, t h e O w n ers’ow n w i t n ess, C ap t ai n M a ro u li s, t est i f i ed h e ha d n ever s e e n t h e US DAi s s u e a c e r t i f i c a t e f o rc a r g o h o l dc l e a n l i n e s s wh e r e t h e US DA i n spect ors di d n oti n spectt h e enti re hol d. L i kew i se, C ap t ai n K atsaros t est i f i ed t hatU SD A and N CB i ns pe c t o r s do no t i s s ue c e r t i f i c at e s c e r t i f

yi ng c ar go ho l ds as sui t able f

or l oad i n g u n less cargo hol d p reparati on i s 100 p ercent com pl et e. In l i gh tof

t h i s evi den ce, w e are not convinced t h at the di st ri ctcou rtcl earl y erred i n r e l yi ng o n t he i s s uanc e o f U SD A andN CB ce r t i f i c at e s i n i t s a s s e s s m e nto f t he
w a r r a n ty , a n da r e n o t c o n v in c e dth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s cle a r lye r r o n e o u s inN o. 08- 31194

7 f i n d i n gt h a tBe r t u c c is a t i s f i e dt h e i m p l i e dwa r r a n t yo f wo r k m anl i ke perf orm an ce. I I I
. C ONC L US I ON F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.