Court Opinion

ID: 9469192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:34:47.009846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:16.629793
License: Public Domain

*113J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I am not persuaded that this is a case of first impression. This case cannot be distinguished in a principled way from City of Long Beach v. American President Lines, 223 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1955), and we should apply its holding here.
The mere fact that this small cadre of compulsory pilots is not directly employed or paid by the Port is not dispositive. As urged by Shipowner, the economic reality and substance is the same here as in City of Long Beach. The realistic situation is that the Port has plenary power to reject any pilot not commissioned by it. Through its tariff and the negotiations with Bay Area pilots and maritime associations, the crucial fact, like City of Long Beach, is that the Port has arrogated unto itself total control of pilotage for its own benefit and for the benefit of a few select pilots.
Finally, the existence of insurance or not has nothing to do with the determination of the liability issue in this case.
There is an implied covenant to perform the personal pilot service with the necessary skill and without neglect. I respectfully dissent and would reverse the district court’s contrary ruling.