In Re: BOPCO, L.P., 2:11-cv-03137

On April 13, 2011 the M/V MR. JOE (operated by BOPCO and piloted by Tyrell DuPont) collided with Ryk Frickey's small vessel at an intersection in Point à La Hache, LA; visibility was clear but marsh grass partially obstructed views.
The MR. JOE had an operational radar system that was not being used at the time; BOPCO had an internal policy discouraging daytime radar use.
DuPont admitted he had not been trained by BOPCO on the Coast Guard Rules of the Road and did not hold a boating license; his understanding of the rules was vague at trial.
The jury found BOPCO negligent and Frickey contributorily negligent (75% BOPCO / 25% Frickey) and awarded Frickey $830,071.78 in damages (medical, lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, mental anguish).
BOPCO sought limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act; the Court reserved that issue for bench determination after the jury verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BOPCO may limit liability under the Limitation of Liability Act (privity or knowledge)	BOPCO had privity/knowledge because it failed to train DuPont and promulgated a policy forbidding daytime radar use, both of which caused the collision	This was pilot error / a mistake of navigation for which owner may limit liability if it used reasonable care in selecting/supervising the master	Denied — Court found owner had privity/knowledge due to failure to train and an explicit policy advising against radar use, so limitation not allowed
Whether the failure to use radar was excusable as discretionary (i.e., not a management-caused unseaworthy condition)	Radar nonuse violated Rules of the Road (Rule 7(b)); company policy caused the nonuse and thus contributed to liability	Radar was unnecessary on a clear day and marsh grass may have prevented radar detection, so radar nonuse did not cause collision	Court held radar should have been used; policy discouraging daytime radar was negligent and contributed causally; radar likely would have given early warning
Whether prejudgment interest should be awarded	Frickey sought prejudgment interest at 5.5% on the award	BOPCO opposed	Denied — Court could not segregate past vs. future damages from the verdict form, and seamen recover prejudgment interest only for past damages; plaintiff waived objection to form

In re Omega Protein, Inc., 548 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2008) (owner must prove lack of privity or knowledge to limit liability when vessel negligence causes loss)
Trico Marine Assets, Inc. v. Diamond B Marine Servs., Inc., 332 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2003) (examples of owner privity/knowledge: failure to provide lookout, train captain, inspect logs, employ safety manager)
Brister v. A.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1991) (corporate knowledge imputed where officers knew or should have known of dangerous conditions; owner bears burden to show lack of privity)
Matheny v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 557 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing owner liability for mistakes of navigation where owner reasonably relied on a competent, trained captain)
In re Kristie Leigh Enter., Inc., 72 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 1996) (owner failed to show lack of privity or knowledge; limitation denied)
In re MO Barge Lines, Inc., 360 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2004) (pilot error may permit limitation where owner reasonably hired a competent operator)