645 F.3d 249
4th Cir.2011Background
- Porter, a Navy RHIB crewmember, died when Tango-2 collided with Vulcan’s tug WILLIAM E. POOLE while pushing an eight-barge flotilla up the James River at night (Oct 11, 2007).
- Vulcan owned the POOLE and filed a limitation of liability action; Massiah sued for wrongful death as Porter's administrator.
- Vulcan and the United States were litigating, with Vulcan seeking contribution from the United States under the Public Vessels Act and Suits in Admiralty Act; the United States counterclaimed for damages.
- District court found both the United States and Vulcan negligent; ruled Porter's death was proximately caused by both; Vulcan ordered to pay damages totaling $1,250,000 (80% US, 20% Vulcan).
- The district court dismissed Vulcan’s third-party contribution claim against the United States under the Feres-Stencel Aero doctrine; Vulcan appealed the negligence ruling and the contribution dismissal, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- This opinion discusses Rule 5 lookout obligations, causation, spoliation, the Pennsylvania rule, and the applicability of Feres-Stencel Aero versus Ionian Glow and Lockheed precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 5 lookout standard applied correctly? | Massiah—Vulcan misapplies Rule 5; factors supported adding a forward lookout. | Vulcan—existing lookouts and wheelhouse visibility render lookout unnecessary. | Rule 5 properly applied; findings supported lookout requirement given conditions. |
| Was Vulcan's failure to post a lookout a proximate cause? | Massiah—lookout omission contributed to collision. | Vulcan—existing lighting and lookouts sufficiently warned of danger. | Findings support proximate causation by lookout omission. |
| Adverse inference for spoliation of evidence? | Massiah—Coast Guard removed bulbs; adverse inference warranted. | Navy lacked control; no spoliation by Vulcan. | No abuse of discretion; no spoliation by Navy; no adverse inference. |
| Pennsylvania rule applied to Rule 5 violation? | Massiah—Pennsylvania rule should shift burden to show no contributing violation. | Tug lights not impaired; not a contributing factor; rule properly applied. | Pennsylvania rule not require shifting burden; court’s fault allocation upheld. |
| Contribution claim barred by Feres-Stencel Aero; Ionian Glow exception? | Ionian Glow allows contribution; government liable for damages. | Lockheed and military-discipline rationale bar contribution; Ionian Glow limited. | Feres-Stencel Aero applies; Ionian Glow not controlling; United States immune from Vulcan’s contribution claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ionian Glow Marine, Inc. v. United States, 670 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1982) (admiralty mutual fault damages doctrine; Ionian Glow allowed apportionment despite government fault)
- Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 597 (U.S. 1963) (divided damages rule; admiralty context; third parties may recover damages)
- Reliable Transfer Co., Inc. v., 421 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1975) (abrogated divided damages; adoption of comparative fault in maritime collisions)
- Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1983) (military nature of action governs sovereign immunity waiver for indemnity; FECA context)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1950) (military discipline and incident-to-service rationale for sovereign immunity)
- Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666 (U.S. 1977) (third-party indemnity against U.S. respect to servicemembers; rationale for Feres-Stencel Aero)
- United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (military discipline and special relationship considerations in Feres line)