In Re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC
624 F.3d 210
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- The MRGO channel was constructed by the Corps of Engineers and maintained by private dredgers under Corps contracts; Limitation Petitioners were among the private dredgers contracted to dredge MRGO from 1993 onward.
- Claimants are Katrina flood victims who own property damaged by flooding after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, contending wetlands erosion from dredging reduced storm surge mitigation.
- Plaintiffs allege that negligent maintenance dredging by Limitation Petitioners caused wetland erosion, amplifying storm surge and contributing to levee breaches and flooding in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes.
- Prior Reed and Ackerson actions against the government and dredgers were dismissed (some immunity theories) and later consolidated with the limitation action.
- The district court dismissed the limitation action on the merits under Rule 12(c), holding no duty owed because the claimed damages were not a foreseeable result of dredging.
- The Fifth Circuit affirms, holding the alleged harms were not reasonably foreseeable and that plaintiffs failed to plead a substantial causal link to any specific dredger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and foreseeability under maritime law | Claimants contend wetlands erosion and flood damages were foreseeable from dredging; | Limitation Petitioners assert damages were not foreseeable and thus no duty | No duty; harms not reasonably foreseeable |
| Causation and group liability in maritime negligence | Claimants seek liability from aggregate dredging activities or individual dredgers for their own contributions | No recognized group liability; insufficient causal link to any single dredger | No substantial causation; no group or individual liability established |
| Rule 12(b)(1) vs Rule 12(c) dismissal | If jurisdiction exists, the merits should be addressed; district court erred in adopting merits-based dismissal | District court had merits-based basis to dismiss under 12(c) | District court did not err in affirming merits-based Rule 12(c) dismissal |
| Adequacy of pleadings to state a maritime negligence claim | Pleadings alleged deviations from Corps specifications and regulatory violations causing wetlands erosion | Pleadings fail to tie any dredger's negligence to specific damages; too attenuated | Pleading insufficient to show a plausible causal link |
| Foreseeability standard applied to dredging-related harms | General knowledge of wetlands’ protective role makes damages foreseeable | Foreseeability requires a direct, proximal link; not demonstrated here | Harm not foreseeable; not within the scope of risk created by the dredging |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. C.F. Bean Corp., 833 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1987) (foreseeability limits; harm must be within general scope of risk)
- Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court, 1940) (government contractor immunity when acting within authority)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 1988) (design-defect immunity when specifications are approved and followed)
- In re Signal Int’l LLC, 579 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2009) (foreseeability of harm from negligent mooring and storm surge)
- Lloyd’s Leasing Ltd. v. Conoco, 868 F.2d 1447 (5th Cir. 1989) (foreseeability of distant environmental harm; not liable where harms are unlikely)