Opinion ID: 27770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review in Salvage Cases

Text: 12 In appeals of admiralty cases, as in most other cases, we review a district court's factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. 3 A [factual] finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court based on all of the evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. 4 As the Supreme Court has stated, however, [w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. 5 Assessing the credibility of witnesses is a task exclusively for the trier of fact. 6 13 The doctrine of salvage is settled. A successful salvage claim requires three proofs: (1) marine peril; (2) voluntary service rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract; and (3) success in whole or in part, or contribution to the success of the operation. 7 The instant case turns on the voluntariness prong, which is ordinarily an issue of fact. 8 Here, however, the question of voluntariness is also presented, in two ways, as an issue of law. First, the district court's analysis of the voluntariness question was grounded in a precedent of ours, and to that extent was a legal analysis. We review de novo a district court's interpretation of our cases. Second, the trial court's voluntariness determination also turned on identifying and interpreting the provisions of law under which the Coast Guard acted; and statutory interpretation too is a question of law that we review de novo. 9