Duty of Wharfinger to Provide Safe Berth

Duty of Wharfinger to Provide Safe Berth

By: Darrinisha Gray

In Re Kindra Lake Towing, No. 15 C 3174, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150512, (N.D. Il. 2017); In Re Kindra Lake Towing, No. 15 C 3174, (2016) WL 3227303, at *1 (N.D. III., 2016).Kindra entered into a demise charter of a barge to Black Diamond, which then demised chartered it to intervenor Foundation Theatre Group to be used for a haunted house at Navy Pier for Halloween 2014.  The barge sank as a result of a storm while docked at Navy Pier.  Kindra and Black Diamond filed a Complaint for Limitation of Liability in which Foundation intervened seeking damages from Navy Pier claiming as a “wharfinger” it had a duty to warn of the weather conditions of the north side of the berth.Foundation maintained that Navy Pier had a duty to warn of conditions on the side of the pier where it had to be docked which is prone to storms or gales from the northeast subjecting the vessel to more damage. As the pier required the vessel to dock there, the claimant asserted it was in the best position to know weather conditions and should have informed it.The court stated that in the Seventh Circuit: “It is well settled that a wharfiger is not the guarantor of the safety of a ship coming to his wharf,” but is “under a duty to exercise reasonable diligence to furnish a safe berth and to avoid damage to the vessel.” On the contrary, wharfingers do not have an obligation to warn others of ordinary weather conditions because they are “open an obvious and do not require a warning.”The claimant argued Navy Pier had an obligation to prevent the accident and should have planned a contingency plan to move ships in case of storms.  It maintained that facts of this case mirrored Seventh Circuit cases, namely, Bhd. Shipping Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 985 F.2d 323, 327-28 (7th Cir. 1993) and Cement Div., Nat. Gypsum Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 915 F.2d 1154, 1156-57 (7th Cir. 1990), and establish a “breach by Navy Pier of its duty to provide a safe berth.” The court stated that it could not cite any evidence to prove that there were unusual conditions that were similar to the Port of Milwaukee cases to uphold liability for Navy Pier. Navy Pier did not have a duty to warn because the conditions were obvious and common knowledge.