Opinion ID: 200824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right to refuse unwanted salvage assistance

Text: 122 Though there are no cases directly on point as to whether an order such as the one issued by the Coast Guard is within the bounds of acceptable seamanship, 26 the law of salvage provides valuable guidance on this issue. Salvage law governs the rescue and salvage of vessels in marine peril. 123 One well-established principle is that shipowners and masters have a right to refuse salvage assistance. The right to refuse salvage is a firmly established right of vessel owners and masters: [u]nder nearly all supposable circumstances when the master is in command and control of his own ship he may refuse and reject salvage services, and no volunteer salvor can force on him, and be rewarded for, services which he forbids. The Indian, 159 F. 20, 25 (5th Cir.1908). This Court has previously acknowledged the master's right to refuse unwanted assistance. In Hamburg-American Line v. United States, we noted that salvage services may not be forced on the unwilling. 168 F.2d 47, 56 (1st Cir.1948). This view is consistent with the Supreme Court's statement that salvage cannot be exacted for assistance forced upon a ship. Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611, 613, 47 S.Ct. 663, 71 L.Ed. 1232 (1927). Other cases strongly support this interpretation of salvage law as well. 27 See New Harbor Protection Co. v. Charles P. Chouteau, 5 F. 463, 464 (D.La.1881) (holding that a master has a perfect right to decline any assistance that may be offered him: he should not be assisted against his will). 124 The majority claims that dicta in two district court cases limits the right to decline salvage assistance to instances where only the owner's property interests are at stake. First, it is important to remember that the majority is relying on mere dicta. Second, this dicta is of dubious value because the rule espoused is contrary to the well-established law of salvage. Third, the dicta cited by the majority limits the right to decline salvage assistance from a private salvor to instances when there is danger of large losses of property to third persons or when the master's decision to decline salvage assistance was so palpably and so grossly wrong as to amount to positive misconduct in reference to the claims of humanity. Ramsey v. Pohatcong, 77 F. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1896); Smit Americas, Inc. v. M/T MANTINIA, 259 F.Supp.2d 118, 134 (D.P.R.2003). The NORTHERN VOYAGER did not pose a threat to the property of third persons. Captain Haggerty's decision to continue efforts to salvage his ship was also not so palpably and grossly wrong, evidenced by the fact that the ship remained upright for fifty-five minutes after he was forced to evacuate the NORTHERN VOYAGER, and afloat for some time after capsizing, all of which was more than enough time to have saved his ship, particularly if the Coast Guard had not interfered with the salvor. The Coast Guard has never claimed that there was any regulatory, military, or law enforcement basis for compelling the NORTHERN VOYAGER's crew to evacuate their vessel. All of the officers who remained aboard the NORTHERN VOYAGER freely volunteered to do so, and there is no indication that any of them were acting in a deranged or reckless manner. 125 The language of § 88, as well as the long line of cases holding that the Coast Guard is legally indistinguishable from a private party when providing voluntary salvage assistance, compel the conclusion that the Coast Guard lacked authority and acted outside the bounds of acceptable seamanship forcing the crew to abandon the NORTHERN VOYAGER. 28 126