Court Explains and Applies Presumptions of Maritime Law and Act of God Defense

In the Matter Of the Complaint Of Magnolia Fleet, LLC, 2024 WL 1253848, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52111 * (E.D. La., Mar., 25, 2024; Fallon, J.)

            Entergy Louisiana, LLC (Entergy) filed suit against Vopak Industrial Infrastructure Americas St. Charles, LLC (Vopak) as owner of the barge Kirby 17225 claiming the barge damaged the Entergy protective cluster at its Waterford I & Facility during Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021.[1] The pile cluster is located on the right descending bank of the Mississippi River at Mile Marker 130 AHP (ahead of the pass.)[2] Storm conditions during Hurricane Ida caused the Mississippi River to have a reverse surge  and thus flow upriver.[3] The barge Kirby 17225 and other barges broke loose from the Vopak fleeting facility in Taft, La. also located on the right descending bank of the river.[4] The barges traveled upstream towards the Entergy facility.[5] Kirby 17225 and other barges grounded on a sandbar near the Waterford cluster.[6] To determine liability the court instructed the litigants to brief the applicability of the Pennsylvania rule.[7]

            The Pennsylvania rule addresses the burden of proving causation.[8] A party seeking to invoke the rule must prove three elements: “‘(1) proof by a preponderance of evidence of violation of a statue or regulation that imposes a mandatory duty; (2) the statute or regulation must involve maritime safety or navigation; (3) the injury suffered must be of a nature that the statute or regulation was intended to prevent.’”[9] This then shifts the burden to the party which violated a statute to prove “that the violation could not have been a contributing cause of the allision.”[10] Nonetheless, the court must conduct a negligence analysis as the rule does not determine ultimate liability.[11]

            The Louisiana rule, on the other hand, addresses the rebuttable presumption of breach.[12] A claimant relying on the Louisiana rule must still prove duty, breach, causation and injury.[13] To rebut the presumption, the defendant must prove either: (1) the incident was the fault of the stationary object; (2) the vessel acted with reasonable care; or (3) the accident was unavoidable.[14]

            Next, Judge Fallon addressed the Act of God defense which rebuts the causation element and relieves a party of liability even if its conduct is below the standard of care.[15]

            Having addressed these presumptions and the Act of God defense, he then turned to the liability of Vopak which he found was negligent in mooring the vessel and failed to inspect it prior to the storm, other than a cursory inspection hundreds of feet away.[16] As Vopak violated 33 C.F.R. § 165.803(e), the Pennsylvania rule applies requiring Vopak to prove that the breakaway barge could not have been the cause of the damage which it failed to do.[17]

            Regarding damages, Judge Fallon awarded $1,500,199.06 of which $995,000 was to repair catwalks and catwalk support structures. The question of depreciation arose as to these items.[18] As these repairs do not extend the useful life of the property, deduction for depreciation is unnecessary.[19]

            A copy of the WestLaw version of the opinion is available here.

[1] Magnolia Fleet, 2024 WL 1253848 at *1.

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at *3.

[4] Id. at *1.

[5] Id. at *3.

[6] Magnolia Fleet, 2024 WL 1253848 at *3.

[7] Id. at *4.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. (citing In re Marquette Trans. Co., LLC, 292 F. Supp. 3d 719, 729 (E.D. La. 2018)).

[10] Id. at *5 (citing Impala Terminals Burnside LLC v. Marquette Transportation Co., No. 19-12584, 2021 WL 1123566, *6 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2021)).

[11] Magnolia Fleet, 2024 WL 1253848 at *5.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at *6.

[15] Magnolia Fleet, 2024 WL 1253848 at *6.

[16] Id. at *7.

[17] Id. at *8.

[18] Id. at *9-10.

[19] Id. at *11 (citing Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505-506 (5th Cir. 1994)).