Opinion ID: 772696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligence of Hamilton

Text: 47 The district court's finding that Hamilton negligently operated the vessel is a finding of fact, which we will not set aside unless clearly erroneous. See Coumou, 107 F.3d at 295. The standard of care applied by the district court is a question of law, which we review de novo. See id.; Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Atropos Island, 777 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1985). State Farm and Hamilton (collectively State Farm) assert that in finding Hamilton negligent, the district court, relying on Gemp v. United States, 684 F.2d 404, 408 (6th Cir. 1982), applied an inappropriately high standard of care when it concluded that [p]leasure craft operators are charged as a matter of law with knowledge of information shown on nautical charts. Theriot, Nos. 96-1532, 96-1954, slip op. at 15. State Farm argues that Fifth Circuit jurisprudence does not impute knowledge of nautical charts on recreational mariners that are not required by law to equip their vessels with such charts. 2 They assert that the appropriate standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances and that finding Hamilton negligent based on his failure to consult the NOAA chart is reversible error. 48 We agree that the appropriate standard of care in an allision case is reasonable care under the circumstances. See Nettles v. Ensco Marine Co., 980 F. Supp. 848, 853 (E.D. La. 1997) (citing 2 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law 14-2, at 255 (2d ed. 1994)); see also Bunge Corp. v. M/V Furness Bridge, 558 F.2d 790, 795 (5th Cir. 1977) (stating that the moving vessel must exhaust every reasonable possibility which the circumstances admit and show that in each they did all that reasonable care required); Couch v. Bowman, 263 F. Supp. 714, 716 (E.D. Tenn. 1966) (applying standard of reasonable care to recreational boat operator). We conclude, however, that notwithstanding the court's reference to the Gemp rule in its conclusions of law, the district court applied the reasonable care standard to reach its finding that Hamilton was negligent. 49 The district court's ultimate finding of negligence on the part of Hamilton was premised in part on its initial finding that [a] reasonably prudent boater, unfamiliar with the area in which he was navigating, would have consulted the applicable navigational chart of the area. The wording of this finding is a strong indication that the standard of care applied by the district court was reasonableness under the circumstances. The district court focused on the fact that Hamilton was admittedly unfamiliar with the particular area in which he was operating the boat. Additionally, the district court's ultimate finding of negligence was based not only on Hamilton's failure to consult the chart, but also upon his admitted unfamiliarity with the hazards of the area, and his unsafe speed in light of those circumstances. Specifically, the district court stated: 50 We also find that Herbert Hamilton was negligent in the operation of the boat. Hamilton was at the helm of the craft at the time of the accident. As such, he was charged with familiarizing himself with the various depths and hazards of the surrounding waters. Hamilton was admittedly unfamiliar with the area, and did not consult authorized navigational charts. He proceeded at an excessive and unsafe speed in light of his professed unfamiliarity with the area. Hamilton's actions and/or inactions were a proximate cause of the accident. 51 Theriot, Nos. 96-1532, 96-1954, slip op. at 10. Thus, the district court's finding of negligence rested upon the reasonableness of Hamilton's conduct under the circumstances. Moreover, this finding is not clearly erroneous based on the district court's underlying factual findings. 52 The underlying facts pertaining to the district court's finding of negligence are as follows. Hamilton was not familiar with the area that he was operating the boat, although he had fished a different cut in South Pass on one prior occasion. None of the other occupants had operated a boat in this area, nor were they familiar with it. Neither Hamilton nor any of the others had consulted NOAA chart 11361 or any other navigational chart depicting the depths, obstructions, or hazards in South Pass. The sill was marked on NOAA chart 11361 and had been charted since 1960. The usual noticeable rolling break in the water indicating the sill's location was not present. The coast guard's Notice to Mariners warned of the danger posed by the sill and was available to anyone upon request. Hamilton did not consult the Notice to Mariners prior to operating the boat. There was no physical marker or warning sign at the location of the sill. Estes was looking in the water immediately before the accident and could not see the sill below the surface, nor could anyone else. Hamilton did not exit the cut at the same location that Estes had safely entered, but instead exited closer to the northern bank of the cut. As Hamilton prepared to enter the Gulf, he accelerated to approximately 15 miles per hour, which was an unsafe speed under the circumstances. 53 The only fact susceptible to challenge is the finding that Hamilton operated the vessel at an unsafe speed under the circumstances. On this point, Davis, Theriot, and Estes all testified that nothing in Hamilton's operation of the vessel caused them any concern for their safety. Berg, the civil engineer for the Corps who conducts surveys and investigates accidents in the South Pass area, testified that he safely entered the cut in a vessel very similar to Estes' Boston Whaler by trimming his engines up and letting the current take him through. Shilling testified that a prudent mariner would familiarize himself with the area and in any event, would be very careful going through an unfamiliar area. Hamilton testified that he monitored the depth finder while at the helm and it was fluctuating between ten and eleven feet, which normally would be sufficient depth for this size boat. However, Hamilton also admitted that because the depth finder was located on the rear of the boat, the front of the boat would already have passed over the area before he would be able to determine the depth. In light of Hamilton's admitted unfamiliarity with the area or its hazards, his decision to exit the cut at different location than they had safely entered, and the inability of the depth finder to determine the depth at the front of the vessel, the district court's finding that the Hamilton operated the vessel at an unsafe speed under the circumstances was not clearly erroneous. Consequently, the ultimate finding that Hamilton negligently operated the boat was not clearly erroneous. Moreover, this finding is consistent with decisions in other circuits finding a boat operator negligent when, along with other factors, he failed to familiarize himself with the area by consulting charts, notices to mariners, or approved light lists. See, e.g., Andrews v. United States, 801 F.2d 644, 649 (3rd Cir. 1986) (evidence that recreational boaters were piloting their boats in wholly unfamiliar waters without the benefit of personal experience, navigational charts, or even the ability to recognize the standard maritime road symbols supported finding of negligence); Albinder v. United States, 685 F. Supp. 45, 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that hired boat pilot who was unfamiliar with the area was negligent in not having available up-to-date navigational guides made available to the public by the U.S. Government and in selecting a route which departed from the plainly indicated channels and resulted in the accident). 54 Our conclusion is not affected by the fact that federal regulations do not require a vessel of this size to be equipped with NOAA chart 11361. See 33 C.F.R. 164.01, 164.33. A finding of negligence need not be premised on the violation of a specific statute or regulation. See 2 Schoenbaum, 14-2, at 255 (Liability for collision may be imposed even in the absence of a statutory violation, if there is negligence.). As stated above, the test is reasonable care under the circumstances. Thus, the fact that Hamilton was not required by statute or regulation to consult the chart does not undermine the district court's finding that Hamilton was negligent under the prevailing conditions at the time of the accident.