SCF Waxler Marine, LLC v. Aris T M/V, 2:16-cv-00902

Background

On Jan. 31, 2016, the Greek-flag bulk carrier M/V Aris T (upbound) allided with multiple docks and struck/struck vessels near Hahnville, LA, after a complex meeting/overtaking sequence with two downbound towboats: the Loretta G. Cenac (Cenac) and the Elizabeth M. Robinson (Genesis). Damages to VRNO and Shell/Motiva were stipulated at $20M and $22M respectively; SCF Waxler and Kirby damages were also stipulated.
The Aris T was under pilot Michael Leone; the Loretta (Z-drive) was commanded by Dennis Sanamo (Cenac); the Elizabeth was commanded by Darryl Christiansen (Genesis). High river, strong current, night lighting, and partial fog were relevant conditions.
Key failures: simultaneous overtaking and meeting agreements in a river bend; Loretta’s port face wire parted during maneuvering; Cenac’s captain used a cell phone in the wheelhouse; limited/incorrect use of radar/ECS/Rose Point by the tow captains and the Aris T pilot; communication gaps among vessels.
The court found multiple violations of the Inland Navigation Rules (Rules 2,5,6,7,8,9,13,14,16,17,34) and related bridge-to-bridge radio duties by Cenac, Genesis, and Aris T (pilot), and apportioned fault among them.
Allocation of fault: Aris T (in rem) 10%; Genesis (Elizabeth) 45%; Cenac (Loretta) 45%. The Aris T interests were allowed to limit liability; Cenac and Genesis were not (privity/knowledge and unseaworthiness findings as to Cenac; inadequate hiring/training as to Genesis).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which parties caused the allisions and how to allocate fault?	Claimants (VRNO/Shell/Motiva/others) argued Aris T’s pilot failed to keep safe speed/lookout and coordinate meeting, causing damage.	Aris T interests blamed towboats and crew for unsafe overtaking/positioning and face-wire failure.	Court apportioned fault: Aris T 10%, Genesis 45%, Cenac 45%; all three liable to claimants (jointly and severally except to extent Aris T limits).
Are the Aris T interests entitled to limitation of liability?	Claimants opposed limitation arguing owner/manager had privity/knowledge of pilot negligence or unseaworthy conditions.	Aris T interests argued negligence was with compulsory pilot and owners/managers lacked privity/knowledge.	Aris T interests permitted to limit; post-casualty value plus pending freight set at $8,645,171.42.
Are Cenac and Genesis entitled to limitation?	Cenac and Genesis sought limitation to vessel value.	Claimants argued Cenac knew of face-wire issues (unseaworthy) and Genesis failed to hire/train competent master (privity/knowledge).	Court held Cenac and Genesis not entitled to limit: Cenac for unseaworthiness and spoliation; Genesis for inadequate hiring/training; both jointly and severally liable for apportioned shares.
Is Morris (dockworker) entitled to emotional/physical injury damages?	Morris claimed he suffered traumatic injury/PTSD from the allision and dock incident.	Defendants argued Morris was not in zone of danger, gave inconsistent histories, had no objective signs of TBI/PTSD, and injury resulted from his own panic/fall.	Court dismissed Morris’s claims with prejudice: vessel negligence was not a substantial/legal cause; Morris not in zone of danger and testimony was not credible.

Key Cases Cited

Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1972) (principle that maritime law governs navigable-water hazards affecting commerce)
United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1975) (comparative fault allocation in maritime collisions)
In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2010) (elements of maritime negligence and duty analysis)
Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 1994) (limitation-of-liability privity/knowledge standard)
Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 268 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1925) (framework for post-casualty vessel valuation in limitation actions)
The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1895) (presumption on allisions with stationary objects)
The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1873) (Pennsylvania Rule regarding statutory violations and burden shifting)