Chemical Tanker Liable in Collision with Dredge

Stolt Achievement, Ltd. v. Dredge B.E. Lindholm, 440 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2006)

Benjamin N. Spruill, 3L, Roger Williams University School of Law

In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an equal division of damages ruling arising out of a collision between two vessels in the Houston Ship Channel. The court found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas was not clearly erroneous in its findings of apportioned fault and preserved the equal allocation of liability.

Background
On October 21, 2001 the dredge boat Lindholm, while traveling outbound in the Houston Ship Channel, collided with the inbound chemical tanker Stolt Achievement. Just prior to the collision the two vessels had radio confirmation that they would conduct a standard port-to-port passing. Shortly after this communication the Lindholm sheered from its course, changing direction abruptly and inadvertently towards the Stolt Achievement. Evasive maneuvers conducted by the Stolt Achievement failed to prevent the collision.

The lower court found that both vessels were in violation of certain sections of the Uniform Inland Navigational Rules (Inland Rules), the body of law that controls navigation on the Houston Ship Channel and other internal waterways of the United States. Because both the Stolt Achievement and Lindholm were found negligent in the events leading up to the collision the court apportioned liability equally and awarded 50 percent of damages for repairs to each party. Additionally, the Stolt Achievement received 50 percent of damages for loss of vessel use.
The Stolt Achievement appealed the apportioned liability, contending that the district court clearly erred in five instances. In an admiralty action, the reviewing court’s standard of review requires reversal of the lower court only if there was a clear mistake in light of the evidence. The reviewing court cannot reverse even if it would have weighed the evidence differently as a trier of fact.

Stolt Achievement’s Negligence
The court determined that the Stolt Achievement was negligent and in violation of Inland Rule 6 by proceeding at an excessive speed. In admiralty collision cases a party challenging its liability must meet the standards of the Pennsylvania Rule, a court doctrine that requires the challenging party to prove that its statutory violation was not a contributing cause of the accident.1

The Stolt Achievement challenged the lower court’s finding that the customary speed of navigation at which it was traveling created a bow wave sufficient to disrupt the navigation of the Lindholm. The location of the collision occurred at a particularly narrow section of the Houston Ship Channel where Coast Guard warnings required vessels to operate at slower than customary speed. Because the Stolt Achievement failed to dispute the effects of its speed and the potential for a greater bow wave at the narrow section of the channel, the court found that the Stolt Achievement did not satisfy the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rule; specifically, its excessive speed was not a contributing cause of the collision.

Expert Testimony
The Stolt Achievement next argued that the admission of the Lindholm’s expert testimony was an abuse of discretion by the lower court. The Lindholm brought a Master Mariner to discuss ship handling and navigation. The Stolt Achievement argued that the witness was not qualified to discuss hydrodynamic effects of the Stolt Achievement on the Lindholm, specifically whether the Stolt Achievement’s bow wave adversely affected the Lindholm’s navigation. The court quickly dismissed this challenge, noting that the trial court limited the testimony to general navigation and did not admit opinions on the hydrodynamic effects of the Stolt Achievement.

Superseding Cause
The Stolt Achievement claimed that any negligence it may have committed was superseded by the actions of the Lindholm. The Lindholm’s sheer arguably cut off the Stolt Achievement’s liability because the sheer caused the collision and occurred independent of the Stolt Achievement’s negligent bow wave. The court found this analysis unpersuasive, holding that the events leading up to the collision could not be separated. The sheer alone did not cause the collision; the one harm, damage from the collision, arose out of both the Stolt Achievement’s excessive speed and the Lindholm’s sheer, caused by the bow wave.

Apportioned Liability
The Stolt Achievement also challenged the lower court’s equal allocation of liability, claiming that the Lindholm was more at fault in the collision. In determining allocation of liability a court is not bound by set standards; instead, it must weigh the number and faults of each party. The lower court found each party equally responsible for the collision. The court found no reason to alter the equal allocation of liability because the finding was supported by evidence that both the excessive speed of the Stolt Achievement and the Lindholm’s sheer equally contributed to the collision.

Average Adjuster’s Fees
Prior to trial the Stolt Achievement and Lindholm agreed on the amount of average adjuster’s fees owed. Payment of adjuster’s fees is an admiralty tradition requiring vessel and cargo owners to share in the cost of loss. Despite the stipulation, the lower court denied the Stolt Achievement entitlement to these fees. However, the denial was not erroneous. The court determined that the stipulation was only an agreement on the amount of the fees, not an admission of liability. In order to recover the fees, the Stolt Achievement only relied on the stipulation and did not prove entitlement.

Conclusion
Finding all of the Stolt Achievement’s arguments regarding its negligence and liability unpersuasive, the court affirmed the apportionment of fault and preserved the equal allocation of liability.

Endnotes
1. The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1873).

University of Mississippi