746 F.3d 518
2d Cir.2014Background
- Barlow began seafaring in 1974; earned merchant marine officer’s license in 1986 and master license in 1992; retired after a long career at sea.
- In March 2007, Barlow joined Liberty Sun as third mate, a 33,000-ton cargo ship, moored at Hermasa grain terminal in Itacoatiara, Brazil.
- Moored configuration included forward breast lines to shore, starboard lines to mooring buoys, and a starboard bow tug assisting to fend off the terminal.
- On May 24, 2007, a forward breast line parted; pressure from current and tug created heightened danger; remaining lines later began to part.
- Barlow attempted to intervene, disobeying orders at times, and used an improvised method to operate a winch termed 'bumping the brake,' causing the line to pay out uncontrollably and injure him.
- Jury found 10% fault on defendants and 90% on Barlow; damages set at $446,000; district court denied post-trial relief; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of care for maritime torts | Barlow urged Furka rescue doctrine standard. | Liberty Sun urged reasonable seaman standard. | Court adopts reasonable mariner standard; not Furka rescue doctrine. |
| Rescue doctrine instruction under emergency | Barlow requested Furka-based jury instruction. | Defendants urged no Furka instruction; use emergency standard. | Rescue doctrine not adopted; use reasonable seaman standard under emergency. |
| Apportionment of fault | Barlow seeks different fault apportionment based on rescue conduct. | Jury reasonably apportioned fault, primarily to Barlow. | Appellate review accords deference; jury verdict not disturbed. |
| Unseaworthiness presumption when lines part | Broken lines imply unseaworthiness; presumption applies. | Unseaworthiness requires a defect; intervening force could excuse. | No strict presumption; evidence supported no unseaworthiness as a matter of law. |
| Jury instructions on equipment and seaworthiness | Mooring lines should be treated as ship equipment explicitly. | Instructions adequate without explicit mooring-line clause. | District court instruction adequate; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Furka v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Inc., 755 F.2d 1085 (4th Cir. 1985) (rescuer not liable unless wanton or reckless)
- Furka v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 824 F.2d 330, 824 F.2d 330 (4th Cir. 1987) (rescuer's assessment of rescue required)
- Pedersen v. United States, 224 F.2d 212 (2d Cir. 1955) (reasonableness standard under emergency)
- Badalamenti v. United States, 160 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1947) (early formulation of rescue doctrine; reasonableness standard)
- Martinez v. United States, 705 F.2d 658 (2d Cir. 1983) (presumption and seaworthiness context; abnormal forces considered)
- Oliveras v. Am. Exp. Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 431 F.2d 814 (2d Cir. 1970) (unseaworthiness; forceful conditions may render vessel unseaworthy)
- The Cape Race, 18 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1927) (emergency forces and rescue considerations in maritime context)
- Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N.Y. 176 (1921) (Cardozo reasonableness standard in rescue context)