20 F.4th 1015
5th Cir.2021Background
- SCF Marine delivered barge SCF 14023 to Terral River Service under a bailment; prior to delivery C&M Marine inspected the barge on May 2, 2018 and reported no leaks and only trace water in void tanks.
- Terral’s harbor crew inspected and accepted the barge on May 7, 2018; the barge was partially loaded over two days and was seen fine at 5:30 a.m. on May 11 but partially sunk by 5:50 a.m.
- Salvors recovered the barge and surveyors found a 12-inch fracture on the port bow rake knuckle over a void tank and green witness marks near the fracture.
- Terral sued SCF for maritime negligence, unseaworthiness, breach of contract, indemnity, contribution, and salvage; SCF moved for summary judgment and filed Daubert motions to exclude two of Terral’s expert opinions.
- The district court excluded key expert opinions under Daubert and granted summary judgment for SCF on all claims; Terral appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to prove unseaworthiness? | Terral: bailment shifts burden to SCF to prove seaworthiness. | SCF: claimant (Terral) must prove barge was unseaworthy when it took custody. | Terral bears burden of proving unseaworthiness. |
| Admissibility of expert causation/age opinions | Terral: experts capable of showing fracture preexisted delivery. | SCF: experts’ opinions unreliable under Daubert. | Court excluded key expert opinions as unreliable. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that fracture preexisted delivery to defeat summary judgment | Terral: circumstantial evidence (witness marks, inspection limitations, lack of green objects at facility) creates factual dispute. | SCF: inspection reports and lack of admissible expert proof show no genuine issue. | Without excluded experts, Terral lacked evidence to show fracture predated delivery; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Salvage claim viability despite bailee status | Terral: salvage claim independent of fault and need not show fracture timing. | SCF: Terral had a preexisting bailee duty of care, so services were not voluntary and salvage fails. | Salvage claim defeated because Terral had an existing duty as bailee; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (controls admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden on nonmovant when essential element lacks proof)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment standards and nonmovant burden)
- Morales v. City of Galveston, 370 U.S. 165 (1962) (shipowner’s duty to furnish seaworthy vessel)
- The Sabine, 101 U.S. 384 (1879) (elements of maritime salvage)