Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America), Inc.
900 F. Supp. 2d 669
E.D. La.2012Background
- Two-step charter arrangement: ACL contracted DRD to operate ACL tugs under a bareboat charter and to re-charter back under a time charter; MEL OLIVER served as the temporary replacement for PAM D.
- DRD operated the MEL OLIVER as owner pro hac vice and bore responsibilities for maintenance, crewing, licensing, and compliance under the charters.
- Collision occurred when the MEL OLIVER tow collided with the M/V TINTOMARA, causing sinking of DM-932 and damages to TINTOMARA; multiple related claims followed.
- Evidence showed DRD’s management knew of prior safety violations, unlicensed captains, and 12-hour watch violations; DRD concealed licensing issues in May 2008.
- ACL argued that its vetting and oversight could render it liable for DRD’s conduct; the court evaluated privity/knowledge and operational control.
- Court findings concluded DRD retained ownership pro hac vice and operational control; ACL not liable for DRD’s concealment or DRD’s independent misconduct, while DRD and MEL OLIVER were cast in fault for the collision; alternative limitation findings discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRD held ownership pro hac vice and operational control | TINTOMARA argues ACL controlled the vessel | DRD maintains owner pro hac vice with control | DRD retained ownership pro hac vice and operational control |
| Whether ACL can be liable for DRD’s negligence due to privity/knowledge | ACL knew or should have known of DRD’s risks | ACL not responsible for DRD’s concealed misconduct | ACL not liable for DRD’s concealment or standalone misconduct; limited privity established but not actionable fault by ACL |
| Whether TINTOMARA bears fault for the collision | TINTOMARA’s flotilla and actions caused risk | TINTOMARA acted properly under Inland Rules | TINTOMARA not at fault; DRD and MEL OLIVER cast at fault for the collision |
| Whether liability can be limited under the limitation statute | Limitation should reduce exposure | Limitation should apply to TINTOMARA interests | Alternative finding: limitation may apply if no-fault for TINTOMARA is overturned |
| Whether licensing/safety deficiencies support ACL’s liability | ACL’s vetting failed due to DRD’s issues | DRD’s misconduct independent of ACL; ACL acted reasonably | Credible evidence shows DRD culpability; ACL not liable for DRD’s concealment or prior independent failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U.S. 698 (U.S. 1962) (bareboat concepts; owner pro hac vice implications)
- Loose v. Offshore Nav., Inc., 670 F.2d 493 (5th Cir.1982) (substance over form in determining charter type)
- Bosnor, S.A. de C.V. v. Tug L.A. Barrios, 796 F.2d 776 (5th Cir.1986) (owner pro hac vice; responsibilities for vessel management)
- Etheridge v. Sub Sea International, Inc., 806 F.Supp. 598 (E.D.La.1992) (limits of operational control concept in liability)
- Baker v. Raymond International, Inc., 656 F.2d 173 (5th Cir.1981) (shield doctrine; scope of control and responsibility)
- China Union Lines, Ltd. v. A.O. Andersen & Co., 364 F.2d 769 (5th Cir.1966) (privity/knowledge; duty to inspect; awareness of conditions)
- In re Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz, 954 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir.1992) (knowledge through inspection; priority for limitation)
- The Quogue, 47 F.2d 873 (2d Cir.1931) (duty to stop and reverse; privilege limits)
- Sawyer v. McDonald, 165 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1948) (privileged vessel duty to avoid collision; ordinary care)