Bertucci Contracting Corp. v. M/V Antwerpen

353 F. Supp. 2d 722, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27089, 2004 WL 3143593
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedAugust 10, 2004
DocketCIV.A. 03-0186, CIV.A. 03-0277, CIV.A. 03-0291
StatusPublished

This text of 353 F. Supp. 2d 722 (Bertucci Contracting Corp. v. M/V Antwerpen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bertucci Contracting Corp. v. M/V Antwerpen, 353 F. Supp. 2d 722, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27089, 2004 WL 3143593 (E.D. La. 2004).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LEMMON, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2003, at 0200 hours, the MTV LADY JEANETTE, 1 owned by Sandbar III, Inc. (Sandbar) and operated by F & L Marine Management, Inc. (F & L), the bareboat charterer, and her flotilla of four hopper barges in a two-by-two configuration were headed downbound on the Mississippi River. The M/V LADY JEANETTE was above the Huey P. Long Bridge when Captain Kenneth Ayars established radio communications to discuss the traffic situation with a number of vessels in the vicinity of Nine Mile Point. The M/V BEVERLY ANDERSON, a large seagoing integrated tug and barge, was proceeding downbound; and the M/V ALICE HOOKER and the M/V ANT-WERPEN, an oceangoing bulk freighter, 2 *724 owned and operated by Marvita Shipping Co., Ltd. (Marvita), were proceeding up-bound.

Teal M. Grue, a compulsory New Orleans/Baton Rouge river pilot (NOBRA 64), who was assisting the Polish crew of the M/V ANTWERPEN, agreed to overtake the M/V ALICE HOOKER on the M/V ALICE HOOKER’S starboard side, before meeting the M/V BEVERLY ANDERSON. The M/V BEVERLY ANDERSON was to pass the M/V LADY JEANETTE on the M/V BEVERLY ANDERSON’s starboard side (two whistles), then pass the M/V ANTWERPEN on the starboard side. Grue and Captain Ayars of the M/V LADY JEANETTE agreed to a port-to-port passing (one whistle) and for the M/V LADY JEANETTE to navigate close to the right descending bank near Nine Mile Point. 3 Although all passings were successful, Grue was unable to avoid an allision with a stationary fleet of barges, owned and operated by Bertucci Contracting, located on the left descending bank at Mile 103.5 AHP above Nine Mile Point, after he passed the M/V LADY JEANETTE. Marvita alleges that the M/V LADY JEANETTE failed to comply with the passing agreement and embarrassed the M/V ANTWERPEN’S navigation, forcing it into the Bertucci fleet.

Bertucci filed a complaint against the M/V ANTWERPEN in rem and Marvita in personam for damages to its barges (No. 03-0186), and Marvita filed a third-party complaint against the M/V LADY JEANETTE, F & L, and Sandbar. The case between Bertucci and Marvita was settled prior to trial, but Marvita’s third-party claims remain outstanding. Marvita filed a separate complaint against the M/V LADY JEANETTE in rem and F & L and Sandbar in personam (No. 03-0277) asserting an admiralty and maritime claim under Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and F & L and Sandbar filed a complaint for exoneration from or limitation of liability to the value of the M/V LADY JEANETTE (No. 03-0291). On March 29, 2004, the consolidated cases proceeded to trial before the court on the issue of fault, liability, and limitation of liability.

II. DISCUSSION

Marvita alleges that the M/V LADY JEANETTE failed to keep her passing agreement to hold close to the right descending bank (west bank) as it proceeded around Nine Mile Point, encroached on the path of the M/V ANTWERPEN, and caused the pilot to steer into the left descending bank (east bank) and thus into the Bertucci barges, in an emergency action to avoid collision with the M/V LADY JEANETTE. Marvita contends that the M/V LADY JEANETTE was negligent in failing to exercise prudent seamanship and to follow the Inland Navigation Rules, 33 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq., and that the failure to comply was a proximate cause of the allision with the Bertucci barges. Specifically, Marvita argues that the agreement to pass port-to-port required the M/V LADY JEANETTE to alter her course to starboard in order to pass port-to-port *725 (Rule 14); the WV LADY JEANETTE, as a vessel proceeding along a narrow channel, was required to keep her tow close to the right descending bank (Rule 9); the operator of the MTV LADY JEANETTE failed to use all available means to determine if a risk of collision existed by failing to use the vessel’s radar (Rule 7); the Captain did not comply with the precautions required of seamen or give due regard to the dangers of navigation and collision (Rule 2); the M/V LADY JEANETTE did not take early and substantial action to maneuver to her right to keep clear of the M/V ANTWERPEN (Rules 8 and 14); the M/V LADY JEANETTE failed to maintain a proper lookout (Rule 5); and Captain Ayars failed to warn Grue that he was unable to comply with the passing agreement (Rule 34). Marvita contends that the violations of the Inland Rules raise a presumption of fault against the M/V LADY JEANETTE. The M/V LADY JEANETTE defendants argue that the M/V LADY JEANETTE did not embarrass the navigation of the M/V ANT-WERPEN and that the allision was caused by the M/V ANTWERPEN’S failure to maintain proper steerageway.

Under the general maritime law, a party’s negligence is actionable only if it is a ‘legal cause’ of the plaintiffs damages. See Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir.1992). “The plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, injury sustained by plaintiff, and a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and the plaintiffs injury.” In re Cooper T. Smith, 929 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir.1991).

At trial, Grue stated that he reached a passing agreement with the M/V LADY JEANETTE after discussing with Captain Ayars whether he thought he “could maneuver in a certain way ... before committing to a one whistle passing,” specifically “Can you stick to the point and I’ll come up the bend?” According to Grue, Captain Ayars answered something to the effect that it would be no problem.

Grue testified that, as he approached the M/V BEVERLY ANDERSON, he began slowing down, first to half bell and then to slow bell, and successfully executed the passing. Shortly after the passing, he saw the M/V LADY JEANETTE rounding the point. Grue testified that, when he first saw the M/V LADY JEANETTE, her angle in the river “didn’t seem correct.” However, he was not concerned because “it was a little bit early in his initial turn.” Grue contacted Ayars a second time to inquire whether everything was alright, and Ayars assured him everything was fine. In a third communication, Grue informed Ayers “it’s not looking good.” Grue did not communicate to Captain Ayars or any other vessel that he thought they were going to collide, nor did he sound the danger signal.

Grue testified that, because he observed that the M/V LADY JEANETTE “was closer to the left descending bank than the right descending bank”, he went to “dead slow bell” and pulled his bow and then his stern away from the M/V LADY JEANETTE.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
353 F. Supp. 2d 722, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27089, 2004 WL 3143593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertucci-contracting-corp-v-mv-antwerpen-laed-2004.