899 F.3d 844
9th Cir.2018Background
- Speedboat owned by Rhoades was being driven by Holzhauer on San Francisco Bay; both men were looking away from the boat’s direction when the speedboat collided with GGB’s M/V San Francisco. Holzhauer died; Rhoades was injured.
- Mary Holzhauer (individually and as representative of the estate) sued Rhoades and the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District (GGB); Rhoades and GGB filed cross‑claims and counterclaims.
- At trial, plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly withdrew the claim that Rhoades was negligent; after the plaintiff’s case in chief Rhoades moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50.
- The district court granted JMOL for Rhoades on Mrs. Holzhauer’s negligence claim and on GGB’s cross‑claim for indemnity/contribution, and sua sponte granted JMOL on GGB’s comparative‑negligence defense, eliminating any allocation of fault to Rhoades.
- The jury found Holzhauer 70% at fault and GGB 30% at fault and awarded damages; appeals followed from Mrs. Holzhauer and GGB challenging the legal standard and the JMOLs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of an owner who is a passenger to keep lookout | Rhoades, as owner, owed ordinary owner duty of reasonable care and cannot be treated merely as a passenger | Owner‑passenger should be treated as a passenger when operation is entrusted to a competent operator; passenger rule applies | Owner‑passenger has no duty to keep lookout unless he knew operator was likely inattentive/careless or was jointly operating at the time of accident; district court applied correct standard |
| Joint operation—temporal scope | Joint operation can be judged over the course of the trip (owner had driven earlier, gave directions) | Joint operation must be assessed at the time immediately before and during the accident | Joint operation is assessed at the time immediately preceding/concurrent with the collision; no joint operation found here |
| Radar reflectors / standard practice for small boats | Lack of radar reflectors made the small boat less detectable and breached duty | Radar reflectors are recommended but not required; no evidence they are standard among small boats | Expert testimony did not establish reflectors as an operational standard; absence of reflectors did not create liability against Rhoades |
| Comparative negligence vs. indemnity / JMOL scope | GGB: factual basis existed to submit comparative‑negligence to jury and to pursue indemnity/contribution against Rhoades | Rhoades: no negligence shown; JMOL proper on indemnity/contribution and comparative‑negligence issue was not litigated below | JMOL affirmed: no evidence Rhoades was negligent; indemnity/contribution and comparative‑negligence not sustainable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Weissman v. Boating Magazine, 946 F.2d 811 (11th Cir. 1991) (passenger ordinarily has no duty to keep lookout; two exceptions: knowledge operator is likely inattentive or joint operation at time of accident)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (shipowner owes duty of reasonable care under the circumstances)
- Peters v. Titan Navigation Co., 857 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1988) (owner’s duty of reasonable care in admiralty)
- SPM Corp. v. M/V Ming Moon, 22 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 1994) (passively negligent admiralty party may recover indemnity from primarily negligent party)
- United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1975) (apportionment of damages under admiralty/comparative negligence principles)
- Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for JMOL: facts for clear error, law de novo)