Court Nixes Burden of Proof Standard in State Pilot Statute
Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC v. Navigation Maritime Bulgarea et al., Case 2:19-cv-10927-NJB-DPC, March 31, 2022, E.D. La., Brown, J.
(No WestLaw or Lexis cite available at this time)
This collision on the Mississippi River below Algiers Point has generated several opinions from the trial court. One of the issues in the case was the alleged gross negligence of the pilot. Under Louisiana law, a river pilot can be held liable only for gross negligence or willful misconduct for which requires “clear and convincing evidence.”1
The parties submitted issues prior to trial for the court to resolve. One was whether the state statute standard of “clear and convincing” evidence or the maritime standard of a preponderance of the evidence prevailed as the burden of proof. Judge Brown determined that as the court was exercising admiralty jurisdiction, substantive maritime law applies. State law may apply on if it does not conflict with federal maritime law.2 The state standard of “clear and convincing evidence” conflicts with maritime law; hence, the preponderance of the evidence standard as opposed to the heavier “clear and convincing” standard applies.
Supreme Court jurisprudence establishes clearly that state law may supplement maritime law but not if the state law deprives a party of substantive rights of maritime law or federal statute. Does this standard of the state statute deprive any party of a right established by maritime law or federal statute? A broader question is: Though Congress delegated to states the authority to regulate pilots, is this state statute truly regulation of pilots? Third, is this more an evidentiary standard rather than one of substantive maritime rights?
A copy of the opinion from the court is attached.
We wish to thank Adam Davis of Phelps Dunbar LLP for sending this opinion to us.
1 LSA-R.S. 34:1137 “Any party seeking to hold a pilot acting under his state commission issued in accordance with this Chapter liable for damages or loss occasioned by the pilot’s errors, omissions, fault, or neglect shall be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the damages arose from the pilot’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.”
2 See footnote 11: Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 314–15 (1955). See also Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 409–410 (1953) ("While states may sometimes supplement federal maritime policies, a state may not deprive a person of any substantial admiralty rights as defined in controlling acts of Congress or by interpretative decisions of this Court.").
