Mike Hooks Dredging Co. v. Marquette Transportation Gulf-Inland, LLC
716 F.3d 886
5th Cir.2013Background
- MIKE HOOKS dredge moored on north ICW bank near Wax Lake intersection undergoing repairs.
- PAT MCDANIEL, a passing vessel, collided with the moored dredge after a SARAH D collision earlier.
- Hooks operated under Army Corps contract; required a picket boat to aid passing traffic.
- Wax Lake intersection is narrow (400–800 feet wide) with strong currents and eddies.
- Picket boat knew it would not physically assist passing traffic; Hooks proceeded to Wax Lake anyway.
- District court apportioned liability: Hooks 70%, Eckstein 30%, Vizier 50% of Hooks’s claims against Eckstein; Vizier liable for 15% of total damages
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INR 9(g) violation triggers The Pennsylvania presumption | Hooks argues no presumption if not obstruction | Eckstein defends INR 9(g) applicability and presumption | Yes; INR 9(g) imposes clear duty; presumption applies |
| Whether the MIKE HOOKS could have been moved to a non-narrow mooring | Hooks contends risk prevented moving dredge | Eckstein contends alternative mooring existed | District court did not clearly err; prudent move possible |
| Whether apportionment of liability among Hooks, Eckstein, Vizier was proper | Hooks challenges 50% credit to Vizier for Eckstein’s fault | Vizier liable to Eckstein per Rule 14(c); apportionment supported | Apportionment upheld; Hooks liable 70% total |
Key Cases Cited
- The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 125 (1873) (burden-shifting presumption for regulatory violation in collisions)
- Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Flora MV, 235 F.3d 963 (5th Cir. 2001) (presumption rebuttable; applies to clear legal duty violations)
- Stolt Achievement v. Dredge B.E. Lindholm, 447 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for factual findings in admiralty bench trials)
- Self Towing, Inc. v. Brown Marine Services, 837 F.2d 1501 (11th Cir. 1988) (previous interpretation of INR 9(g) before plain-text clarification)
- Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV, 610 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (imperiled-party deference; not controlling where in extremis standard debated)