667 F.Supp.3d 611
N.D. Ohio2023Background
- On April 30, 2019, at ~12:56–1:34 AM, the M/V Saginaw (639 ft.) approached Norfolk Southern’s swing bridge on the Maumee River; Saginaw radioed an ETA and said it would not depart until the bridge was open.
- Bridge operator John Helton communicated with Saginaw and a dispatcher; bridge opening was delayed and did not appear fully open until about 1:34 AM while Saginaw was maneuvering in strong current with tug assistance (tug Colorado).
- Saginaw lost alignment in the strong current and struck the bridge’s west fender system; repair costs were stipulated at $444,146.28.
- Saginaw argued Norfolk Southern violated 33 C.F.R. § 117.5 (drawbridge must open promptly) invoking the Pennsylvania Rule to shift the presumption of fault to the bridge owner.
- The court found both parties shared fault: Norfolk Southern’s late opening triggered the presumption, but Saginaw’s captain failed to confirm opening/adequately control the vessel in high current.
- Court apportioned fault 75% to Norfolk Southern and 25% to Saginaw, entering judgment for Norfolk Southern against Saginaw for $111,036.57 plus prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bridge operator’s late opening violated 33 C.F.R. §117.5 and invoked Pennsylvania Rule | Bridge violated §117.5 by not opening promptly after ETA/radio notice; presumption of vessel fault shifts to bridge owner | Saginaw contested only allocation, not that bridge opened late | Court: §117.5 violation found; presumption shifted to Norfolk Southern (Pennsylvania Rule applies) |
| Whether Saginaw’s conduct contributed (comparative negligence) | Saginaw contends bridge operator’s failure was the proximate cause | Norfolk Southern: Captain Lozon failed to confirm opening, mismanaged maneuvering, and advanced despite misalignment | Court: Captain negligent for not confirming/opening and not better aligning; Saginaw bears 25% fault |
| Adequacy of communications / "invitation to proceed" | Saginaw relied on an implied invitation and initial radio ETA; departure based on operator comments | Norfolk Southern: communications were vague; captain should have obtained explicit confirmation or tug verification | Court: Communications were ambiguous; Saginaw should have sought explicit confirmation or tug assistance before proceeding |
| Damages allocation and interest | Norfolk Southern seeks full repair costs from Saginaw | Saginaw argues shared fault reduces recovery | Court: Apportioned liability under Reliable Transfer; awarded NS 25% of damages ($111,036.57) plus prejudgment interest at prime rate |
Key Cases Cited
- The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 (presumption of fault against moving vessel in allisions)
- The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (Pennsylvania Rule permitting presumption shift when bridge violates mandatory safety statute)
- States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397 (allocation of damages by comparative fault in maritime cases)
- Grosse Ile Bridge Co. v. American S.S. Co., 302 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2002) (shared-fault analysis and in-extremis doctrine guidance)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Kirby Inland Marine, 296 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2002) (elements to invoke Pennsylvania Rule)
- Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transp., 596 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussion of Oregon Rule and allisions)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Revilo Corp., 637 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1981) (bridge-owner liability and rebuttal of moving-vessel presumption)
- City of Milwaukee v. Cement Division, Nat’l Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189 (prejudgment interest considerations)