Court upholds $19,000,000.00 Maritime Law Verdict
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld a $19,000,000 verdict in a maritime injury case.
The case, styled In re Superior Construction Co., Inc. v. Charles Brock et al, involved injuries to recreational boaters.
Superior Construction Company was the general contractor for the Florida Department of Transportation’s work expanding the Blanding Boulevard Bridge over the Cedar River in Jacksonville, Florida. The company frequently stationed the barge and the tug so that recreational boaters could pass under the bridge. On December 29, 2001, the company tied the barge and the tug so that they blocked a large portion of the waterway commonly used by recreational boaters to pass under the bridge. In addition, employees positioned the tug perpendicular to the barge, further hindering passage.
The barge was painted black which made it difficult to see at night. The barge and tug had a total of twelve lights and on the night of the collision only three of ten lights on the barge, and only one of two lights on the tug, were operating.
Charles Brock was driving a recreational boat and approached the bridge at night. Brock slowed the boat and turned to pass through one of the three spans used by recreational boaters. Neither he nor anyone on his boat saw barge until it was too late to avoid a crash. As a result of the allision, he and his passengers suffered extensive injuries.
Superior brought an admiralty action in federal district court seeking to limit its liability for the allision under the Limitation of Liability Act.2 Brock and his passengers counterclaimed. The district court found that Superior was not entitled to limit its liability and that Superior was responsible for the injuries. Superior appealed. On appeal, Superior claimed that the barge had not obstructed traffic and that the company had overcome the presumption that they were at fault. Superior also claimed that the court should have assigned a percentage of fault to Brock, since his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit under federal and state law.
The appellate court reviewed the district court’s application of two rules that apply when a moving vessel allides with a stationary vessel. The first rule, called the Oregon Rule, says that the burden of proof is initially on the moving vessel to prove that the allision was the stationary vessel’s fault and that the moving vessel acted with reasonable care or that the accident was unavoidable. The Pennsylvania Rule, by contrast, shifts the burden to the stationary vessel if it violates a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions. The stationary vessel must then prove that its statutory violation could not have been a cause of the accident. In cases where both vessels involved in the allision are operating in violation of statutes designed to prevent accidents, the Pennsylvania Rule requires the court to find that both parties contributed to the accident, unless it finds that either party could not have been at fault.
The court found that Superior had violated a federal statute stating that it is unlawful to tie up or anchor vessels in a way that would obstruct other vessels from passing through a channel.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion that the only cause of the accident could have been Superior’s actions in placing and lighting the barge. The Court also explained that the company failued to warn the Coast Guard or recreational boaters.
Superior appealed the amount of damages awarded to two of the passengers, claiming they were too high. The Court disagreed.
The case, styled In re Superior Construction Co., Inc. v. Charles Brock et al, involved injuries to recreational boaters.
Superior Construction Company was the general contractor for the Florida Department of Transportation’s work expanding the Blanding Boulevard Bridge over the Cedar River in Jacksonville, Florida. The company frequently stationed the barge and the tug so that recreational boaters could pass under the bridge. On December 29, 2001, the company tied the barge and the tug so that they blocked a large portion of the waterway commonly used by recreational boaters to pass under the bridge. In addition, employees positioned the tug perpendicular to the barge, further hindering passage.
The barge was painted black which made it difficult to see at night. The barge and tug had a total of twelve lights and on the night of the collision only three of ten lights on the barge, and only one of two lights on the tug, were operating.
Charles Brock was driving a recreational boat and approached the bridge at night. Brock slowed the boat and turned to pass through one of the three spans used by recreational boaters. Neither he nor anyone on his boat saw barge until it was too late to avoid a crash. As a result of the allision, he and his passengers suffered extensive injuries.
Superior brought an admiralty action in federal district court seeking to limit its liability for the allision under the Limitation of Liability Act.2 Brock and his passengers counterclaimed. The district court found that Superior was not entitled to limit its liability and that Superior was responsible for the injuries. Superior appealed. On appeal, Superior claimed that the barge had not obstructed traffic and that the company had overcome the presumption that they were at fault. Superior also claimed that the court should have assigned a percentage of fault to Brock, since his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit under federal and state law.
The appellate court reviewed the district court’s application of two rules that apply when a moving vessel allides with a stationary vessel. The first rule, called the Oregon Rule, says that the burden of proof is initially on the moving vessel to prove that the allision was the stationary vessel’s fault and that the moving vessel acted with reasonable care or that the accident was unavoidable. The Pennsylvania Rule, by contrast, shifts the burden to the stationary vessel if it violates a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions. The stationary vessel must then prove that its statutory violation could not have been a cause of the accident. In cases where both vessels involved in the allision are operating in violation of statutes designed to prevent accidents, the Pennsylvania Rule requires the court to find that both parties contributed to the accident, unless it finds that either party could not have been at fault.
The court found that Superior had violated a federal statute stating that it is unlawful to tie up or anchor vessels in a way that would obstruct other vessels from passing through a channel.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion that the only cause of the accident could have been Superior’s actions in placing and lighting the barge. The Court also explained that the company failued to warn the Coast Guard or recreational boaters.
Superior appealed the amount of damages awarded to two of the passengers, claiming they were too high. The Court disagreed.
