Fischer v. S/Y Neraida, 2007 US App. LEXIS 26698 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2007).

Terra Bowling, J.D.

In 2004, Hurricane Frances hit the southeast coast of Florida causing widespread damage. During the storm, a sailing yacht broke free of its moorings and crashed into a dock. The dock owner brought suit and the Eleventh Circuit exonerated the yacht owner. The court found that the yacht owner’s preparations for the hurricane were reasonable and that the damage could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care.

Background
The S/Y Neraida was anchored in Lake Worth, Palm Beach by its owner, Peter Siavrakas. Siavrakas lived in Michigan and relied on a caretaker to maintain the yacht. When the National Weather Service issued a hurricane warning for the east coast of Florida, Siavrakas contacted the yacht’s caretaker and another acquaintance, Steven Cienkowski, to make the necessary preparations. Cienkowski made the preparations alone on the evening of September 3. The main anchor on the yacht was already set, and Cienkowski ensured that the sails were tied and secured to the mast and dropped the yacht’s secondary anchor.
      On the night of September 4, hurricane force winds began to hit the area and Frances made landfall early the next morning. During the storm, the Neraida broke free of its moorings and crashed into David Fischer’s dock. Fischer brought suit in rem against the boat and an action in personam against Siavrakas and the Neraida Co.
      The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of Siavrakas. The court held that Siavrakas met the burden of proving that his actions in securing the yacht were reasonable and exonerated him. Fischer appealed the judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred by failing to shift the burden of proof to Siavrakas, the court should have held Siavrakas liable because it found that Hurricane Frances was not so severe as to make the accident inevitable, and that Siavrakas’ preparations were not reasonable.

Burden of Proof
The Eleventh Circuit first examined whether the district court correctly shifted the burden of proof to Siavrakas. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court correctly shifted the burden when it stated that Siavrakas would be “relieved from liability only if [he] can show that the damage caused to [Fisher’s] dock could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care.”1
   Next, the court addressed whether the Louisiana Rule required a higher standard of care than reasonable care. The Louisiana Rule states that when a vessel moving or drifting due to an external force, such as the current or the wind, allides with a stationary object, the moving vessel is presumptively at fault.2 The presumption is rebuttable if the defendant can illustrate one of the following three things: “that the allision was the fault of the stationary object; that the moving vessel acted with reasonable care; or that the allision was an unavoidable accident.”3
      Siavrakas raised the defense that he exercised reasonable care in preparing the yacht for the hurricane. The court cited several allision cases in which the court applied the reasonable care standard, negating Fischer’s argument that a higher standard should be used. Fischer based his argument on several Eleventh Circuit cases that “referred to the burden facing a defendant seeking to overcome the Louisiana Rule’s presumption of fault as “heavy” or “strong.”4 The court noted that the use of those words did not result in a higher standard of conduct, but meant that the defendant had a strong burden of persuasion. Fischer also argued that the “act of God defense” requires the defendant to prove that he took not just one reasonable course of action among many, but all reasonable measures. The court noted that the reasonable care defense under the Louisiana Rule does not require the defendant to show that he took all reasonable measures.
       
Reasonable Care
Finally, Fischer challenged the district court’s decision that Siavrakas took reasonable care in preparing for Hurricane Frances. The court defined the standard of reasonable care in this case as “that of prudent men familiar with the ways and vagaries of the sea.”5
      Fischer first challenged the fact that the Neraida’s sails were not removed; however, the court agreed with expert testimony that removing the sails before a storm only protects the sails and does not protect the ship from breaking anchorage. Next, Fischer contended that the anchorage was unreasonable for the storm, but the court noted Fis­ cher’s own expert’s testimony stating that the use of fewer an­ chors is safer in shifting wind conditions. Finally, Fischer argued that the ship should have been moved to a different location. The court agreed with expert testimony that not moving the Neraida was a reasonable decision given “the storm’s movement, the hazards of navigating in shallower waterways, and the risks of docking in more densely packed anchorages further south.”6

Conclusion
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

Endnotes
1.  Fischer v. S/Y Neraida, 2007 US App. LEXIS 26698 at *12 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2007).
2.  Id. at *14.
3.  Id. at *14-15.
4.  Id. at *19.
5.  Id. at *24.
6.  Id. at *25.