Court Rejects Flotilla Doctrine for Limitation Fund: Pure Tort Exception Applies
In re Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf Inland, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95620 *, 2021 WL 2005901 (W.D. La., May 19, 2020, Summerhays, J.).
M/V RANDY ECKSTEIN, owned by claimant in limitation, had 6 barges in tow and struck a dry dock owned by LAD while proceeding down the lower Atchafalaya River. An employee of LAD, a seaman, was injured when he fell from his bunk due to the allision. Marquette filed a complaint for Limitation of Liability and deposited a bond in the amount of $2,684,000 for the limitation fund. Thereafter, the employee filed a claim for personal injuries; and LAD filed a claim for the damage to the drydock including any maintenance and cure paid to its employee.
Marquette filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment claiming the “flotilla doctrine” did not apply to the six barges it had in tow based on the “pure tort” exception to the flotilla doctrine and alternatively as the barges were neither owned nor bareboat chartered by it.
The trial judge noted that this doctrine applies "where all such vessels were not only owned by the same person, but were also both engaged in a common enterprise and under a single command."(citing: Cenac Towing Co., Inc. v. Terra Res., Inc., 734 F.2d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Complaint of Tom-Mac, Inc., 76 F.3d 678, 684 (5th Cir. 1996))
But, the “pure tort doctrine” is an exception. Where there is no contractual relationship or consensual relationship between the allegedly offending vessel and the third party, the vessel owner only has to surrender the value of the offending vessel. Here, as the injured employee and the owner of the drydock alleged negligence and failed to allege any contractual or consensual relationship with Marquette, the flotilla doctrine was inapplicable. The Motion of Marquette was granted.
A copy of the opinion is attached. Many thanks to Adam Davis of Phelps Dunbar for bringing this case to our attention.
