Larry Alexander v. Ingram Barge Company
876 F.3d 269
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- On April 18, 2013, a 14‑barge tow pushed by the M/V Dale A. Heller attempted to transit into the Marseilles Canal during record rains and high water; a Corps lockmaster’s gate settings change produced a powerful outdraft that caused the tow to break up and some barges to allide with the Marseilles Dam.
- The tow had combined with an upriver tow (29 barges total) and had been the subject of an emergency industry call (IRCA) that agreed the lockmaster would lower the dam tainter gates to 16 gate‑feet to permit safe passage, despite heightened flood risk to the town.
- During the transit a miscommunicated radio exchange prompted Lockmaster Rodriguez to raise the gates to 88 feet rather than lower them, dramatically increasing the outdraft and precipitating the accident.
- The Flood Claimants sued (after the United States was dismissed on sovereign‑immunity grounds under the discretionary function exception), pursuing claims against Ingram (owner/operator of the Dale Heller) for negligence and violations of Inland Navigation Rules 2, 5, and 7.
- The district court held a bench trial on liability for the allision and concluded Lockmaster Rodriguez’s actions were the sole proximate cause; it found no violation of the cited Inland Navigation Rules and exonerated and limited Ingram’s liability.
- The district court’s factual findings were upheld on appeal; the appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the Flood Claimants failed to prove regulatory violations and that the Corps (immune from suit) was solely responsible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ingram violated Rule 2 (Responsibility) | Planning, communications, and transit decisions were negligent and departed from seafaring practice | Crew reasonably relied on IRCA plan and lockmaster’s commitment; measures were prudent under exigent conditions | No Rule 2 violation; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Ingram violated Rule 5 (Lookout) | Lack of unobstructed 360° view and no forward observer meant inadequate lookout | Captain White (and pilot/assist vessels) provided adequate lookout and could reasonably rely on lockmaster’s gate control | No Rule 5 violation; visibility of gate setting not plain and lookout adequate |
| Whether Ingram violated Rule 7 (Risk of Collision) | Crew should have inquired of lockmaster after ambiguous radio traffic and aborted transit | Captain reasonably relied on lockmaster’s exclusive authority to operate gates and on prior plan; ambiguity did not require mid‑transit challenge | No Rule 7 violation; reliance on lockmaster reasonable under circumstances |
| Whether Pennsylvania rule shifts burden to Ingram | If any navigation rule was violated, Ingram must show violation could not have contributed | No predicate regulatory violation proven; Pennsylvania rule not triggered | Pennsylvania rule inapplicable because no regulatory violations found |
Key Cases Cited
- The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1873) (rule shifting burden to vessel when statutory navigation rule violated)
- Marport, Inc. v. Stabbert & Associates, Inc., 771 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1985) (helmsman or captain may serve as lookout from wheelhouse)