Opinion ID: 215188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Damages Caused by a Public Vessel

Text: The PVA waives sovereign immunity for suits for damages caused by a public vessel of the United States. 46 U.S.C. § 31102(a)(1). A `public vessel' is one owned or operated by the United States and used in a public capacity. Taghadomi, 401 F.3d at 1083 n. 3. It is undisputed that the Coast Guard ship at issue here is a public vessel. But Plaintiffs argue that the PVA does not apply because the damages caused by the actions of the Coast Guard crew, especially those actions taken while aboard the Ecuadorian ship, are not damages caused by a public vessel. For decades, weand the Supreme Courthave interpreted that phrase broadly. Indeed, 60 years ago we interpreted the phrase damages caused by a public vessel to encompass all tort and contract claims aris[ing] out of the possession or operation of the ship. Thomason v. United States, 184 F.2d 105, 107 (9th Cir.1950). The phrase includes damages arising from those acts for which a private ship is held legally responsible as a juristic person under the customary legal terminology of the admiralty law. Id. at 107-08. We held, for instance, that unpaid compensation for seamen's services were damages caused by a public vessel. Id. at 108. Similarly, in American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U.S. 446, 448-54, 67 S.Ct. 847, 91 L.Ed. 1011 (1947), the Supreme Court held that a longshore-man's claim for personal injury resulting from the fall of a beam, negligently secured by a federal employee, constituted damages caused by a public vessel. See also id. at 453, 67 S.Ct. 847 (recognizing the growing feeling of Congress that the United States should put aside its sovereign armor in cases where federal employees have tortiously caused personal injury or property damage). In Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 324 U.S. 215, 224-25, 65 S.Ct. 639, 89 L.Ed. 901 (1945), the Court rejected a reading of the PVA that would have related only to collisions and held that the PVA extends to cases where the negligence of the personnel of a public vessel in the operation of the vessel causes damage to other ships, their cargoes, and personnel, regardless of physical contact between the two ships. More recently, we held that a claim alleging a negligent search by a Coast Guard ship fell within the scope of the PVA's damages caused by a public vessel requirement. Taghadomi, 401 F.3d at 1088. Given our broad interpretation of the phrase, [3] we conclude that Plaintiffs' claims here assert damages caused by a public vessel. Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, the crew of the public vessel stopped Plaintiffs' ship on the high seas, boarded it, damaged the cargo and other property, and towed the ship to Ecuador. Although the public vessel itself played a direct role only in some of the actions (stopping and towing Plaintiffs' ship), the public vessel's role in all of the actions of the crew is unmistakable. Even the actions of the crew members while aboard Plaintiffs' private ship ar[ose] out of the possession or operation of the ship. Thomason, 184 F.2d at 107. The PVA extends to cases where the negligence of the personnel of a public vessel in the operation of the vessel causes damage to other ships, their cargoes, and personnel, regardless of physical contact between the two ships. Canadian Aviator, 324 U.S. at 224-25, 65 S.Ct. 639. The relevant operation of the vessel here is not simply the movements of the public vessel itself; the relevant operation is the Coast Guard's search and seizure of Plaintiffs' vessel on the high seas. Thomason, 184 F.2d at 107-08. In conclusion, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs' claims fall within the PVA's requirement of damages caused by a public vessel.