974 F.3d 601
5th Cir.2020Background
- On Jan. 26, 2016, upbound M/V JUSTIN PAUL ECKSTEIN (JUSTIN) attempted a "top around" from slack water into the Mississippi River channel and collided with downbound M/V VANPORT (VANPORT) while BEATRICE was passing the VANPORT.
- Captains exchanged radio communications; Vidrine (VANPORT) believed JUSTIN would wait and spin behind him, Jackson (JUSTIN) believed he had consent to top around ahead and began turning into the channel.
- Rose Point navigation data showed VANPORT hugging the west bank and BEATRICE completing an overtake as JUSTIN moved into the channel, producing the collision and ~$1.2M cargo damage.
- After a two-day bench trial, the district court found both captains negligent, apportioned fault 70% to Marquette (JUSTIN) and 30% to Deloach (VANPORT), and found violations of several Inland Navigational Rules including Rule 14(d).
- Both parties appealed: Marquette argued Rule 14(d) required VANPORT to propose manner of passage (and attacked related Rule 5–8 findings); Deloach cross-appealed the 30% allocation and sought prejudgment interest.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the apportionment (no clear error), rejected Marquette’s Rule 14(d) theory, and remanded solely to determine prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Rule 14(d) (must downbound "propose manner of passage") | Deloach: VANPORT lacked notice JUSTIN would move into channel, so no duty to propose passage | Marquette: downbound (VANPORT) had right-of-way and must propose manner of passage; VANPORT failed that duty | Court: Affirmed district court — factual finding that VANPORT lacked notice not clearly erroneous; Rule 14(d) requires proposing passage only "as appropriate," Marquette’s strict duty reading rejected |
| Applicability of Rules 5–8 (look-out, safe speed, use all means, take action) | Deloach: district court’s alternative findings on ordinary negligence control; VANPORT not culpable beyond 30% | Marquette: misreading of Rule 14(d) infected rulings under Rules 5–8 | Court: Rejected Marquette; even if Rule 14(d) read differently, ordinary negligence findings stand; no clear error in Rules 5–8 findings |
| Apportionment of fault (70% JUSTIN / 30% VANPORT) | Deloach: Vidrine essentially innocent; 30% allocation erroneous | Marquette: district court’s apportionment proper | Court: Affirmed apportionment; deferential review finds no clear error in district court’s credibility-based allocation |
| Prejudgment interest | Deloach: entitled to prejudgment interest as prevailing maritime party | Marquette: (opposed or unaddressed) | Court: Remanded to district court to consider prejudgment interest (trial court record lacked findings on the issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Luwisch v. Am. Marine Corp., 956 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2020) (bench-trial factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal issues de novo)
- Marine Transp. Lines, Inc. v. M/V Tako Invader, 37 F.3d 1138 (5th Cir. 1994) (discusses Rule 14(d) and when downbound may alter ordinary port-to-port passing)
- Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Tug Mary Malloy, 414 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1969) (failure to yield right-of-way can be negligence)
- In re Settoon Towing, L.L.C., 859 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2017) (deferential review of apportionment of fault in maritime collisions)
- Pennzoil Producing Co. v. Offshore Exp., Inc., 943 F.2d 1465 (5th Cir. 1991) (Pennsylvania Rule — violation of collision-prevention statute shifts burden)
- Reeled Tubing, Inc. v. M/V Chad G, 794 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1986) (prejudgment interest is the rule in maritime cases; denial permitted only for peculiar circumstances)
- Whitfield v. Lindemann, 853 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir. 1988) (remand appropriate where district court did not analyze prejudgment interest)