Personal Injury Law

District court did not err in finding that yacht owners were entitled to exoneration under 46 U.S.C.S. § 30505 in connection with damage sustained by dock when yacht broke free from its anchorage during a hurricane where owners showed that damage could n

By Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A.

DAVID T. FISCHER, individually, ALFRED J. FISHER, versus Plaintiff-Appellant, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, S/Y NERAIDA, her engines, tackle, rigging, dinghies, equipment, appurtenances, furniture, etc., in rem, NERAIDA CO., L.P., a Michigan Limited Partnership, PETER SIAVRAKAS, in personam Defendants-Intervenor- Defendants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26698
November 19, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Appellant dock owner sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which, after a bench trial, entered a judgment holding that appellee yacht owners were entitled to exoneration under 46 U.S.C.S. § 30505 in connection with damage sustained by the dock when the yacht broke free from its mid-lake anchorage during a hurricane.

OVERVIEW: To prepare for the hurricane, the yacht owners furled the yacht's sails and dropped a self-setting second anchor. On appeal, the court held that (1) the district court, in accordance with the Louisiana Rule, correctly shifted the burden of proof to the yacht owners, stating that the yacht owners were relieved from liability only if they could show that the damage could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, but once the yacht owners showed that their preparations were reasonable, the presumption that the yacht, as a moving vessel, was at fault was overcome; (2) the burden-shifting requirement of the Louisiana Rule did not convert the liability standard in allision cases from ordinary negligence to something more demanding than reasonable care under the circumstances; (3) the yacht owners were not required to show that nothing they could have done would have prevented the vessel from breaking free of its anchorage, as such an act of God defense was applied to an argument of superseding causation, which was not at issue in this case; and (4) the testimonial evidence showed that the yacht owners took reasonable care to secure the yacht against hurricane winds.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

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