Opinion ID: 675247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: They were attempting to deliver the product to Indian River. (R9-61).

Text: 18 . . . . . 19 Q. Would the delivery have occurred upon the alignment of Tank 24 with the Indian River tank if Indian River could have pumped the cargo? 20 A. After it was cleared our gate, yes. 21 Q. What do you mean by that? 22 A. If all the proper documentation had been made and it was pumped and a gate pass was issued for it to leave our gate and leave the Port of Miami. 23 Q. Would delivery have occurred by aligning Tank 24 with trailer no. 24 [sic] when the pumping could not occur? 24 A. No. (R9-83-84). 25 . . . . . 26 Q. Is there a point in time when Eller's terminal services for Kirk Line ends that you are aware of, for the handling of cargo? 27 A. Yes, upon the issuance of a gate pass. (R9-83-84). 28 . . . . . 29 Q. Now you say a gate pass wasn't issued in this case, right? 30 A. That's right. 31 Q. Do you know if a delivery receipt was issued in this case? 32 A. I think I saw one. 33 Q. Is there a difference between the two? 34 A. Yes. The gate pass allows the unit to leave our facility. 35 Q. What's the function of the delivery receipt? 36 A. It is that the cargo has been delivered. (R9-93). 37 . . . . . 38 Q. Was it customary on a day-to-day basis for Eller & Company to sign delivery receipts and to get a receiver, a trucker, to sign a delivery receipt before delivery had been effected? That's my only question. Was that customary to do? 39 A. No. 40 Q. And yet it was done in this case, is that what you are suggesting. 41 A. Evidently. (R9-100-101). 42 . . . . . 43 Q. Were delivery receipts issued customarily with shipments of Tia Maria, that is coming into Miami and going off? 44 A. Yes. 45 Q. And when ordinarily were those issued? 46 A. Upon completion of the delivery of the cargo. 47 Q. And ordinarily the delivery of the cargo of bulk Tia Maria was done by pumping, isn't that correct? 48 A. Not all the time. 49 Q. But I mean customarily it was-- 50 A. Not in this case. 51 Q. I know not in this case. Tank 24 was normally pumped out, wasn't it? 52 A. I would say probably at least a third of the time it was delivered by a gravity feed. (R9-103). 53 Stephens's testimony is clear: Eller, contrary to its custom, issued the delivery receipt to Indian River before completion of delivery, which in this case was being performed by gravity transfer. The court reasonably inferred that this departure from custom was a mistake, and that the receipt, therefore, did not establish the time delivery took place. 54 The testimony of Jose Naranjo, Eller's general traffic manager at the time of the accident, further supports the district court's finding: 55 Q. Were there times when the pumping couldn't be performed that you are aware of? 56 A. Yes sir, there were many times. 57 Q. At any time prior to April 1, 1985, what if anything did Eller do with the Tia Maria when a pump could not occur? 58 A. ... [W]e brought the tank from the lot, the container lot, and brought it alongside the Indian River truck where the tank was transferred through gravity. What we did very simply is we placed it at a higher level than the receiving tank. (R9-113-114). 59 Q. Do you think Eller was obligated to lift Tank 24 on the forklifts for this gravity feed in it contract with Kirk Line? 60 [objection omitted] 61 A. Eller's responsibility was to deliver the contents of Tank 24 to Indian River and they were to utilize whatever methods were necessary to complete the transfer. 62 Q. But lifting the tank with a forklift, was that an obligation Eller owed to Kirkconnell? 63 A. With a forklift or any other equipment that was available.... (R9-116). 64 . . . . . 65 Q. Please look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 11. Can you identify that for the court? 66 A. Yes sir. This is a delivery receipt. 67 Q. What is the function of the delivery receipt? 68 A. This delivery receipt is completed after the cargo is delivered to the receiver's trucker. 69 Q. That appears to be the delivery receipt issued for the Tia Maria that was spilled. Would that have been issued before the spill or after the spill, if you know? 70 A. Normally this document is issued immediately after the delivery. (R9-117). 71 . . . . . 72 Q. Can you think of a reason why there would be the release for this dock receipt signed by the parties prior to the transfer? 73 [objection omitted] 74 A. No sir, I couldn't say why. Like I say, normally this is issued after the cargo is delivered. 75 Q. Could it have been issued because it was anticipated that the cargo would have been pumped? 76 A. I would say that is the case, yes sir. (R9-118). 77 Thus, Naranjo, like Stephens, believed that Eller performed gravity transfers, whenever necessary, as a service to Kirk Line, and that the issuance of a delivery receipt before completion of such a transfer was contrary to normal procedures. Even assuming, as Hiram Walker contends, the evidence on this point is not uncontroverted, it is the factfinder's job to weigh the evidence and make necessary credibility determinations. The clear error standard of review imposes an especially heavy burden on the appellant in a case such as this, in which the evidence was largely testimonial, and the district court had the advantage of observing the witnesses and evaluating their credibility firsthand. Lincoln v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 697 F.2d 928, 939 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826, 104 S.Ct. 97, 78 L.Ed.2d 102 (1983). Nothing Hiram Walker has presented to this court comes close to satisfying its heavy burden. Having found the testimony of Stephens and Naranjo believable, the district court could easily infer that the receipt was issued inadvertently or in error. This court is not in a position to second guess that finding. 78 Hiram Walker is mistaken in asserting that the [delivery receipt] itself hardly bespeaks an inadvertent error. As the district court noted, the face of the receipt does, in fact, suggest that it was issued erroneously. Handwritten across the front of the document are the words pumped out of Tank # 24 (as per manifest). Obviously, no such pumping occurred, and the written statement is therefore false. Moreover, the writing implies, consistent with court's finding, that the receipt is meant to confirm that cargo has been successfully transferred. On its face, therefore, the receipt indicates that it was issued prematurely, in the mistaken belief that a successful pump transfer would ensue and that no further services would be required of Eller. Because the anticipated method of delivery proved infeasible, and Eller was requested to provide additional services, the district court reasonably concluded the receipt had been issued in error and that it did not accurately reflect the point of delivery. 79 In its amended findings, the district court also considered it important that no gate pass was issued in this case. 3 The court found, based on the testimony of Naranjo and Stephens, that had Eller acted in accordance with its custom, a gate pass would have issued simultaneously with the delivery receipt. Thus, the court reasoned, the absence of a gate pass further demonstrates that the delivery receipt was issued prematurely. 80 Hiram Walker contends the district court's finding is clearly wrong because there is no evidence that gate passes and delivery receipts normally issue simultaneously. This argument, too, is unfounded. As shown above, Stephens and Naranjo both testified that when a gravity transfer is performed, the delivery receipt ordinarily issues following the transfer. Stephens added that Eller issues gate passes when it completes its terminal services and the consignee is ready to leave the facility. Although neither witness specifically stated that the documents normally issue at the same time, that can be fairly inferred since Eller's terminal services apparently end when the transfer is complete. The court's finding is therefore not clear error. 81 Hiram Walker also argues that the district court's emphasis on the gate pass conflicts with this court's statement in Hiram Walker II, 963 F.2d at 331, that the absence of a gate pass ... does little to question the status of the delivery receipt as evidence, though perhaps not prima facie evidence, of delivery. That argument, however, ignores the context of the quoted statement. At the time it was made, this court was not addressing whether the delivery receipt had been issued in error--that argument had not been raised. Rather, we were merely explaining that the absence of evidence establishing change of custody, such as a gate pass, was not conclusive proof that delivery did not occur, and that the district court had therefore erred by apparently ignoring the receipt. In the context of the argument now before us, however, the absence of a gate pass may properly be viewed as limiting the probative value of the delivery receipt because it suggests that the receipt was issued prematurely. The district court's finding, therefore, does not conflict with the law of this case. 82 We emphasize that this ruling does not depreciate the evidentiary value of delivery receipts. Ordinarily, such a receipt would be strong evidence of delivery. We simply reject Hiram Walker's argument that the issuance of a delivery receipt conclusively proves that delivery occurred. Such an absolute rule is inappropriate in light of situations like this where the evidence strongly indicates that the receipt was mistakenly issued before completion of delivery. 83 Finally, contrary to Hiram Walker's argument, the district court did not ignore any longstanding practice between the parties in concluding that the gravity transfer was within the scope of Kirk Line's, and thus Eller's, duty of delivery. As noted above, the district court found that Kirk Line expected Eller to provide whatever services were needed to physically transfer the cargo to Indian River, and that it was up to Eller to decide how to accomplish that task. It found, moreover, that Eller performed gravity transfers in approximately one-third of all deliveries, and that forklifts were used at least fifteen times. These findings, all of which have previously been accepted by this court as not clearly erroneous, Hiram Walker II, 963 F.2d at 330, support the district court's conclusion that Eller was performing services for Kirk Line, and not as a volunteer, when the spill occurred. 84 AFFIRMED.