Personal Injury Law

Under the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act, court granted a tug owner partial summary judgment against bridge owner after the tug collided with bridge where the bridge owner could not establish the tug's unseaworthiness or negligence of tug's ca

By Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF SEA WOLF MARINE TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION, INC., AS OWNER OF THE TUG SEA WOLF FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82565
November 6, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Petitioner, an owner of a tug, moved for partial summary judgment pursuant to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act (Act), 46 U.S.C.S. app. §§ 181-189. Claimant railroad corporation opposed the motion.

OVERVIEW: Petitioner's tug was assigned to transport an empty stone barge. The tug veered off course, then collided with a bridge owned by claimant, damaging the bridge. Petitioner brought this action pursuant to the Act, which allowed a vessel owner to limit liability for damage or injury, occasioned without the owner's privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the owner's interest in the vessel. Specifically, claimant had to establish unseaworthiness or negligence and petitioner then had to prove lack of knowledge or privity of that unseaworthiness or negligence. The court granted petitioner summary judgment. The court first held that the tug's captain was not incompetent based on his licensing, safety record, and experience. Moreover, there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the tug's mechanical seaworthiness, as the tug was maintained regularly, it was fully manned with an experienced crew, and its radar worked. Finally, to successfully limit its liability, petitioner proved that it lacked knowledge or privity of the captain's negligence, as petitioner provided a competent captain, whose decision not to post a lookout did not fall within petitioner's knowledge or privity.

OUTCOME: The court granted petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment.

Full post as published by Cruise Ship Law on November 01, 2007 (boomark / email).