Opinion ID: 775583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arkansas River Co.'s Liability

Text: 12 Our review of whether the Arkansas River Co. should have shouldered at least some of the liability for the allision is limited by the position the government took at trial. The district court indicated at the close of the evidence that it was inclined to find that the Corps failed to secure the Odum's boom in a manner that would render the vessel fit to pass under the Helena bridge (that is, that it tendered the Odum in an unseaworthy condition). It also indicated it was inclined to find that Captain Foster had some duty to find out whether the boom was in the up or down position, even though it was not obvious during Captain Foster's inspection that the boom's height rendered the Helena bridge impassable. After informing counsel of its tentative findings, the district court explained that it was going to compare the parties' fault but that it would give them an opportunity to argue how the fault was to be apportioned. The government's counsel responded that he did not believe that fault could be divided because, as he understood it, the warranty of seaworthiness is an all-or-nothing concept of absolute liability. According to the government's counsel, if the damage to the bridge was caused by the Odum's unseaworthy condition, the government was entirely liable unless the condition should have been obvious to Captain Foster. (J.A. at 313-14.) Based on the government's concession, the district court found that the raised boom was not obvious to Captain Foster and entered judgment in the Arkansas River Co.'s favor for the entire amount of damages. 13 In an allision case such as this one, a court is not constrained to apportion fault on an all-or-nothing basis as the government argued, and the district court was not foreclosed from applying comparative fault in light of its findings. The warranty of seaworthiness stems from the proposition that a tug is not a bailee or insurer of a barge in its tow. Nat G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v. Am. Tug Titan, 516 F.2d 89, 94 (5th Cir.), modified, 520 F.2d 1104 (5th Cir. 1975). In other words, the owner of the tow is responsible for the seaworthiness of its own vessel. Tebbs v. Baker-Whiteley Towing Co., 407 F.2d 1055, 1057 (4th Cir. 1969). The warranty generally arises in the tug/tow context when damages are sought for the loss of a barge in tow, or the loss of its cargo, and the dispute arises over whether the loss was occasioned because of an unseaworthy condition. See, e.g., King Fisher Marine Serv., Inc. v. NP Sunbonnet, 724 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1984); Associated Dredging Co., v. Cont'l Marine Towing Co., 617 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. La. 1985); Falcon Constr. Co. v. Bacon Towing Co., 613 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. Tex. 1985), aff'd, 797 F.2d 975 (F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1986) (unpublished). The law imposes a duty on the tug operator to protect the tow from loss which results from the tow's unseaworthy condition, but only if the unseaworthiness is so apparent that it would be negligent for the tow to attempt to proceed. King Fisher Marine Serv., 724 F.2d at 1184. Only in this narrow circumstance does the law require a tug operator to protect the tow or its cargo from loss caused by an unseaworthy condition. 14 Although a tug operator may discharge its duty to protect the tow from an unseaworthy condition by conducting a reasonable inspection, that fact alone does not insulate the tug owner from an obligation to avoid harm to others if that harm is reasonably avoidable. Cf. Folkstone Mar., Ltd., 64 F.3d at 1046 (stating that the standard for determining liability in an allision case is whether, judged against the standard of good and prudent seamanship, the allision could have been prevented by the exercise of due care). As a consequence, the district court could have found, as it apparently intended to find, that the boom rendered the Odum unseaworthy, that Captain Foster satisfied the duty he owed to the Corps by conducting a reasonable inspection, but that he should have done more to insure that he did not strike the bridge with the Odum's boom. Such findings would certainly be consistent with our view that both the Corps' conduct and Captain Foster's conduct proximately caused the bridge damage, and the parties' fault should have been apportioned. Following United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (1975), the rule of comparative fault applies in an allision case where the concurrent negligence of two or more parties results in the damage that is the subject of the suit. See, e.g., In re Amtrack Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Ala., on Sept. 22, 1993, 121 F.3d 1421, 1423 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Puerto Rico Lighterage Co., 553 F.2d 728, 730-31 (1st Cir. 1977) (rejecting argument that tug operator is absolved of liability where unseaworthy condition was not obvious). 15 Rather than asking the court to compare fault, though, the government urged the court to decide this case along the lines of two other allision cases where barge cranes had allided with bridges, In re J.E. Brenneman Co., 782 F. Supp. 1021 (E.D. Pa. 1992), and Ryan Walsh Stevedoring Co. v. James Marine Serv., Inc., 557 F. Supp. 457 (E.D. La. 1983), aff'd, 729 F.2d 1457 (5th Cir.) (unpublished decision), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 981 (1984). In both cases, the district courts imposed 100% liability on the tug operators because the tug captains failed to undertake a reasonable inspection of the crane barges. Regardless of the outcome of those cases, we do not find them to be inconsistent with our view that comparative fault principles should have been applied in this case. Instead, the decisions suggest that a tug operator's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation that would have alerted the tug operator to the raised boom may amount to a superceding cause absolving the barge owner from liability for its failure to lower the boom. As our court held in Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Mays Towing Co., 927 F.2d 1453, 1459 (8th Cir. 1991), the concept of superceding cause survived the Supreme Court's adoption of comparative fault in admiralty cases. Similarly, nothing in In re J.E. Brenneman or Ryan Walsh suggests that a court must impose 100% liability on the barge owner where a reasonable tug operator would not have found the boom's height to be obvious, which is what the government's counsel told the court it had to do based on the court's tentative findings. 16 Despite our concerns over the posture in which this case has arrived at our judicial doorstep, the government can not complain about the district court's alleged error when its representative asked for that rule to be applied. See Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., 986 F.2d 263, 269 (8th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that there can be no reversible error where the error is invited). For that reason, our review on the government's appeal is limited to ascertaining whether the district court's unseaworthiness finding and its finding that the boom's height was not obvious to Captain Foster are clearly erroneous. See McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954); Folkstone Mar., Ltd., 64 F.3d at 1046 (Questions of negligence in maritime cases are treated as factual issues, and are accordingly subject to [the clearly erroneous] standard of review.). 17 The government argues that the raised boom did not render the Odum unseaworthy because the vessel could be transported with the boom in either the up or down position. Many courts have said that the tow owner has a duty to tender a vessel that is sufficiently staunch and strong to withstand the ordinary perils to be encountered on the voyage. See, e.g., Shebby Dredging Co. v. Smith Bros., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 1279, 1284 (D. Md. 1979). But the obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel goes beyond providing a structurally sound one. The duty requires the tow owner to prepare the vessel, including its appurtenances, in such a way that the tug operator will be able to successfully negotiate the conditions and obstacles that the tow will encounter. Whether a party has met its obligation must be adjudged by reference to the vessel's intended voyage, the hazards likely to be encountered, and the vessel's ability to withstand these hazards. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. L & L Marine Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d 1351, 1354 (8th Cir. 1989). The concept therefore is directly related to the task the tow owner has contracted with the tug operator to undertake. A vessel that is seaworthy for one purpose is not necessarily seaworthy for another. Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States, 70 Tul. L. Rev. 475, 493 (1995). Thus, just because the Odum would float does not mean it was adequately prepared for its intended journey to Memphis. (If the Corps did not lower the boom, then how was it to be lowered?) Our review satisfies us that the district court committed no error in determining that the Corps had a duty to lower the boom and that the Odum was unseaworthy for its journey up river under the Helena bridge. 18 The district court also was not clearly erroneous in finding that the boom's height did not create an obvious concern, even though the court found it to be a close call. Requiring a tug operator to notice obvious conditions of unseaworthiness imparts no obligation upon him to conduct a detailed inspection of the tow. See Nat G. Harrison, 516 F.2d at 94. Instead, the tug operator's duty to inquire and the quality, kind and scope of [a particular] inspection vary with the circumstances of each case. South, Inc. v. Moran Towing and Transp. Co., 360 F.2d 1002, 1006 (2d Cir. 1966). The government suggests Captain Foster should have done more to ascertain the boom's height, specifically, that he should have viewed the Odum from the river's bank to get a better view of the boom's angle. The district court rejected the argument, as do we. On the morning that Captain Foster picked up the flotilla, he checked on the river stages, and he ascertained the vertical clearance at the Helena bridge. He also conducted a thorough walk-around inspection of the entire flotilla, including the Odum. From the Odum's deck he viewed the height of the boom, and he determined that the crane was properly secured in what Captain Foster termed the transit position. He testified that he had transported the Odum under the Helena bridge on several previous occasions, that the Corps had always lowered the boom on those occasions, and that the height of the Odum did not appear to be different on this trip. He also asked Cates before departing whether there was anything unusual about the tow. Cates said no. Under these facts, Foster's inspection was sufficient to apprise him of any obvious condition, and given the testimony at trial about the difficulty of determining the height of the boom from the Odum's deck, we decline to second-guess the district court. 19 Taking a different tack, the government argues that the district court failed to presume under the Pennsylvania rule that Captain Foster's conduct was the cause of the bridge accident. 20 Under the Pennsylvania rule, if a vessel involved in a collision was violating a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, the burden shifts to the violating vessel to show that its fault could not have been a cause of the accident. See The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 125, 22 L.Ed. 148 (1873); see also Garner v. Cities Serv. Tankers Corp., 456 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir.1972). The rule thus creates a presumption that one who violates a regulation intended to prevent collisions will be deemed responsible; but that presumption is rebuttable. 21 Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., v. Flora MV, 235 F.3d 963, 966 (5th Cir. 2000). The government contends that Captain Foster violated two Inland Navigation Rules while attempting to negotiate the Helena bridge, which required the district court to presume that Captain Foster was at fault for the allision. We decline to reach this issue, however, because the government presented no evidence of any statutory violations on Captain Foster's part, nor did it argue at trial that the Pennsylvania presumption of fault applied. See Entergy, Ark., Inc. v. Nebraska, 241 F.3d 979, 986 n.1 (8th Cir. 2001) (declining to reach issue raised for the first time on appeal), cert. denied, 2001 WL 872940 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001). 22