Appeals Court Affirms $19M Award to Boat Passengers
Barge Company at Fault in Allision

Superior Construction Company, Inc. v. Brock, 2006 WL 964105 (11th Cir. Apr. 14, 2006)

Terra Bowling, 3L, University of Mississippi School of Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed an award of more than $19 million in damages to passengers of a recreational boat that allided with a stationary barge.1

Background
At the time of the accident at issue in this case, Superior Construction Company (Superior) was the general contractor for the Florida Department of Transportation’s expansion of the Blanding Boulevard Bridge over the Cedar River in Jacksonville, Florida. Superior had chartered the barge and a tugboat to assist in the project. During the project, the company frequently stationed the barge and the tug so that recreational boaters could safely pass under the bridge. However, on December 29, 2001, the company tied the barge and the tug so that they blocked a large portion of the waterway commonly used by recreational boaters to pass under the bridge. In addition, employees positioned the tug perpendicular to the barge, further hindering passage.

The barge is painted completely black, as are the hull and superstructure of the tug, making it difficult to see the vessels at night. The barge and tug had a total of twelve lights and on the night of the collision only three of ten lights on the barge, and only one of two lights on the tug, were operating. All of the lights were in poor condition.

When Charles Brock, the driver of the recreational boat, approached the bridge that night, he slowed the boat’s speed and turned to pass through one of the three spans used by recreational boaters. Neither he nor his eleven passengers saw the barge until it was too late to avoid a crash. As a result of the allision, he and his passengers suffered extensive injuries.

Superior brought an admiralty action in federal district court seeking to limit its liability for the allision under the Limitation of Liability Act.2 Brock and his passengers counterclaimed. The district court found that Superior was not entitled to limit its liability and that Superior, the barge, and the tug were liable for the injuries. Superior appealed the decision, contending that the barge had not obstructed traffic and that the company had overcome the presumption that they were at fault. In addition, the company argued that the court should have assigned a percentage of fault to Brock, since a blood test taken after the accident indicated that his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit under federal and state law.

Court of Appeals Analysis
In deciding the appeal, the court reviewed the district court’s application of two rules that apply when a moving vessel allides with a stationary vessel. The first rule, called the Oregon Rule, says that the burden of proof is initially on the moving vessel to prove that the allision was the stationary vessel’s fault and that the moving vessel acted with reasonable care or that the accident was unavoidable.3 However, the Pennsylvania Rule shifts the burden to the stationary vessel if it violates a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions.4 The stationary vessel must then prove that its statutory violation could not have been a cause of the accident. In cases where both vessels involved in the allision are operating in violation of statutes designed to prevent accidents, the Pennsylvania Rule requires the court to find that both parties contributed to the accident, unless it finds that either party could not have been at fault.

The court found that Superior had violated a federal statute stating that it is unlawful to tie up or anchor vessels in a way that would obstruct other vessels from passing through a channel.5 The court listed four reasons that Superior had violated this statute. First, the barge blocked 24 percent of the entire passageway. Second, the barge was in an “unorthodox location,” obstructing 68 percent of the passage most commonly used by recreational boaters. Third, the vessels were not lit adequately. Finally, the barge and the tug were virtually invisible from the water.

In light of these findings, the appeals court agreed with the district court’s opinion that Superior did violate a federal statute, and the presumption of fault was on the company. The court also decided that Superior failed to show that its violation of the federal statute could not have been the cause of the collision.
Since Brock was also in violation of state and federal statutes as a result of his legal intoxication, the district court applied the Pennsylvania Rule against him. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s finding that, although Brock did violate the statutes, he met his burden of showing that his intoxication could not have been a cause of the collision. The court listed four reasons why Brock overcame the presumption of liability. First, the court found that Brock’s intoxication did not have a significant effect on his handling of the boat. Second, Brock slowed the boat from 34 miles per hour to 22 miles per hour when approaching the bridge. Third, Brock had aimed the boat so that it would have safely passed under the bridge if the barge had not been in the way. Fourth, other passengers who were not intoxicated and possessed an unobstructed view of the bridge did not see the barge until it was impossible to avoid the collision.

Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion that the only cause of the accident could have been Superior’s dangerous placement and improper lighting of the barge. Additionally, the court noted that the company’s failure to warn the Coast Guard or recreational boaters about the placement of the barge contributed to the accident. The court also affirmed the district court’s finding that Brock’s intoxication could not have been a cause of the collision.

Superior also appealed the amount of damages awarded to two of the passengers, saying that the amounts were so excessive that they “shocked the conscience.” The court found that the district court did not err in awarding the amounts, due to the circumstances surrounding their injuries.

Endnotes
1. “Allision” is a term used in maritime law to denote “the sudden impact of a vessel with a stationary object such as an anchored vessel or a pier.” Black’s Law Dictionary 28 (Bryan A. Garner ed., pocket ed., West 1996).
2. 46 U.S.C. App. §§ 183-89.
3. The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 (1895).
4. The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1873).
5. 33 U.S.C. § 409.