Court Opinion

ID: 9468946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:27:22.726296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:07.622763
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. In my view the majority has engaged in judicial legislation to reach a result which it apparently believes to be fair but which is contrary to the plain and unequivocal meaning of the governing statutes. The effect is to invade Congress’ jurisdiction.
If Congress, in enacting the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 781-790, had wanted to extend the provisions of the Limited Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 181 et seq., to all public vessels, including one “deemed to be a public vessel” by 14 U.S.C. § 827, it could easily have done so. Instead, it restricted the scope of the government’s limitation of liability to that made available by law to “owners, charterers, operators or agents of vessels,” 46 U.S.C. § 789. The purpose was to put the government on the same footing as a private party. A private party which is not the owner or demise charterer of the ship at fault may not avail itself of the shipowner’s limited liability provided by 46 U.S.C. §§ 181, et seq. The Severance, 152 F.2d 916 (4th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 853, 66 S.Ct. 1344, 90 L.Ed. 1626 (1946). The fact that the boat was deemed by statute to be a “public vessel” did not, absent ownership, or chartering by the government, permit the United States to claim limitation of liability. Austerberry v. United States, 169 F.2d 583, 593 (6th Cir. 1948).
Although the Galaxy was “deemed to be a public vessel” while operated by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, 14 U.S.C. § 827, thereby subjecting the United States to liability for damages caused by its negligence, 46 U.S.C. §§ 781-790, it was not at any time owned or chartered by the United States Coast Guard or by any other branch or agency of the government. It was at all times owned and operated by Jerry Bieder, a private person.
The Coast Guard’s relationship to the Galaxy was that of a party who had arranged for the owner as a volunteer to operate his boat temporarily for its assistance. Mr. Bieder, as owner-Auxiliarist, remained in command. This is confirmed by Ch. Ill, Part 2, of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Manual, CG-305 of 1968, which provides:
“In complying with such directions the Auxiliarist-master has the sole responsibility for the safety of his vessel and of the crew. If in his considered judgment the directed operation is not within the capabilities of his vessel, or if he concludes that such movement would hazard his vessel, he may decline the direction. The Coast Guard does not possess authority to take over command of the vessel or to compel the Auxiliarist to comply with his request.... Unless the orders specifically designate that the Auxiliary facility vessel shall be in charge and in command of Coast Guard personnel, the ownerAuxiliarist (or such other Auxiliarist designated by competent orders) shall be in charge and in command of the vessel (Master), and as such he has the sole responsibility for its operations.”
Although the Coast Guard does reimburse the owner pursuant to 14 U.S.C. § 830 for “actual necessary traveling expense and subsistence,” the Coast Guard does not interpret this as giving it the control of a demise charterer. The Manual (cited above) states:
“The purpose of a formal written order to a member of the Auxiliary is not primarily to secure specific action but to cover reasonable expenses inherent to execution of the order, and to provide a reason*729able financial protection to a volunteer assisting the Coast Guard.. .. The assignment of an Auxiliarist to any duty should be predicated upon a genuine and proper need and, considering the voluntary and non-military nature of the organization, such assignment should not be outside the capabilities normal to a voluntary amateur or outside the purely civil functions of the service. A member is not obligated to accept such an ‘order’. ” (Emphasis added).
Even if the Coast Guard were accorded the status of a time charterer it would not as such be entitled to the benefits of the Limited Liability Act. In re Barracuda Tanker Corporation, 409 F.2d 1013, 1015 (2d Cir. 1969). When the government claims status as a charterer it is entitled to limit liability only if it has complete control and authority over the ship during the term of its use of the vessel. Austerberry v. United States, 169 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1948).
The majority struggles mightily, but in my view unsuccessfully, to surmount Congress’ failure to extend limited liability to the government for acts of public vessels not owned or chartered by it. It first argues that since the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to settle claims for damages caused by a vessel in its service on the basis of strict liability, treating the vessel as a “public vessel of the United States” and a “vessel of the Coast Guard,” it is “unlikely that Congress intended that such a public vessel be considered a Coast Guard vessel for settlement purposes but a privately owned vessel in the event of litigation.” (Maj. opin., supra, p. 727). This circular reasoning simply begs the question. The fact that a ship is a “public vessel,” whether for purposes of liability or settlement, does not make it a privately-owned one entitled to limited liability within the plain language of 46 U.S.C. § 789.
The statute’s plain language cannot be avoided by the majority’s ipse dixit to the effect “that the United States should be treated as the owner pro hac vice of the public vessel.” Dominion and control, absent here, are essential to such a status. See Austerberry, supra, 169 F.2d at 593. The inescapable fact is that the United States was neither the owner nor the charterer of the boat. That the Coast Guard may, when it is the owner of a vessel, avail itself of 46 U.S.C. § 789, see United States v. Sandra & Dennis Fishing Corp., 372 F.2d 189, 198-99 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 836, 88 S.Ct. 48, 19 L.Ed.2d 98 (1967), does not entitle it to do so when it is not the owner. Nor is the majority helped by reference to decisions holding that one who exercises “dominion over a vessel should be able to limit his liability to that of an owner.” (Maj. opin., supra, p. 727). The unavoidable fact here is that the Coast Guard did not exercise any dominion or control over the Galaxy, which was at all times operated and controlled by its owner, Mr. Bieder.
For these reasons I would affirm the judgment of the district court.