Otal Investments Ltd. v. M/V Clary, 673 F.3d 108

Three vessels collided in the English Channel; Kariba altered course, struck Tricolor, causing the Tricolor to sink.
District court initially held Kariba 100% liable (Otal I); on appeal, we held all vessels at fault and remanded for relative culpability.
On remand (Otal II), the court instructed consideration of each vessel's culpability and causation, including Clary's logbook alteration.
On remand (Otal III), district court allocated 63% Kariba, 20% Clary, 17% Tricolor by averaging culpability and causation, and refused Clary Owners' limitation.
We affirmed the liability allocation but vacated and remanded on Clary Owners' Limitation of Liability Act eligibility, directing further factual proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly allocated liability among Kariba, Clary, and Tricolor.	Otal argues misallocation; fault should differ.	Kariba/Clary/Tricolor contend district court accorded proper weighting of culpability and causation.	No clear error; allocation affirmed, remanded on limitation issues.
Whether Clary Owners are entitled to limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C. § 30505.	Cargo Claimants must show negligence with privity/knowledge; Clary owners lacked evidence of knowledge.	Clary Owners prove lack of privity/knowledge and thus entitlement to limitation.	Remand to resolve factual lack of knowledge privity; not decided.
Whether the district court correctly treated privity/knowledge evidence in the limitation analysis.	Record shows owners lacked knowledge; overtime/record evidence was misapplied.	Record supports knowledge through lookouts and procedures.	Remand for precise factual determination free of erroneous overtime inference.
Whether the Clary manager relief from liability was properly addressed on appeal.	Manager independence allegations were not adequately ruled upon below.	Argument is waived for lack of preservation in district court.	We decline to consider on appeal.

United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1975) (mult party fault allocation proportional to fault; equal if equally at fault)
Getty Oil Co. (Eastern Operations) v. SS Ponce De Leon, 555 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1977) (allocation of fault is a question of fact, reviewable for clear error)
In re City of N.Y., 522 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2008) (Limitation of liability requires privity/knowledge by owner)
Carr v. PMS Fishing Corp., 191 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (privity/knowledge requires managing agent culpability; knowledge by master may suffice)
Quinn v. Southgate Nelson Corp., 121 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1941) (principle that privity/knowledge issues require factual proof)