W. P. L. Servs. Inc. v. Bisso Towboat Co., 598 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
W. P. L. Servs. Inc. v. Bisso Towboat Co., 598 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
W. P. L. SERVICES, INC., Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
v.
BISSO TOWBOAT COMPANY, INC., in personam and M/V ALMA S, her engines, tackle, etc., in rem
No. 78-2818.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 6, 1979.
Published opinion
598 F.2d 417
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13382
T. C. W. Ellis, John Michael Kops, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant., Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, John J. Broders, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Flat, Goldberg, Roney, Tjo.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Citation check: this opinion cites a case at a citation that does not lead to it.
  • This opinion cites United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. as 44 L.Ed.2d 251. Our index lists it at 44 L. Ed. 2d 250, but 527 other opinions print 44 L.Ed.2d 251 too, so our index may be the one in error. This copy came from a Harvard Caselaw Access Project scan; the error may be the copy's, not the court's.
PER CURIAM:

This is an action by the owner and insurer of the M/V JERRI WATSON to recover damages from the owner of the M/V ALMA S for the sinking of the JERRI WATSON. The accident occurred while the JERRI WATSON was assisting the ALMA S, which had grounded while at mooring during the night. When the ALMA S broke free, the JERRI WATSON was pulled over and sank. Following a nonjury trial, the district court ruled orally from the bench and concluding the evidence showed that the ALMA S was not negligent and that the JERRI WATSON was, dismissed the action. We affirm.

The facts of this case do not support plaintiffs’ contention that the law of salvage applies. To sustain a claim under the law of salvage three requisites must be met: marine peril, service voluntarily rendered where no duty to do so existed, and success- in whole or in part in saving the vessel or a contribution to that success. See West Coast Shipping, Etc. v. Ferry “Chuchequero,” 582 F.2d 959, 960 (5th Cir. 1978); Legnos v. M/V Olga Jacob, 498 F.2d 666, 669 (5th Cir. 1974).

The district court did not err in detecting no marine peril in this case. The ALMA S had run aground on previous occasions under similar circumstances, and could have broken free without assistance. Such groundings were considered insignificant events and the assistance being rendered by the JERRI WATSON was routine courtesy of one vessel to another.

Although Plaintiffs argue the district court erred in finding the crew of the JERRI WATSON negligent, a decision either way on this issue will not control this appeal. The district court found the ALMA S not negligent, and this is the controlling fact on this review. The finding is protected under the clearly erroneous rule. See Harrison v. Flota Mercante Grandcolombiana, S. A., 577 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1978); Solomon v. Warren, 540 F.2d 777, 784 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 801, 98 S.Ct. 28, 54 L.Ed.2d 59 (1977); Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., 412 F.2d 1011, 1020 (5th Cir. 1969). In order to prevail, of course, the plaintiff has the burden of proving some negligence on the part[*419] of the ALMA S. The record supports the district court’s finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the ALMA S was negligent. The United States Coast Guard investigation record indicated:

The proximate cause of the casualty was that while the M/V JERRI WATSON was attempting to pull the M/V ALMA S off ground, the ALMA S suddenly broke free drifting behind the M/V JERRI WATSON. The sudden movement and the abrupt change in the aspect of the two vessels resulted in the ALMA S pulling the JERRI WATSON then flooded and sank.

The district court reasoned that the ALMA S, while moving backwards, could not have anticipated that the JERRI WATSON would not have taken normally expected precautions of either casting off the line or turning the vessel to eliminate the possibility of the sinking. Review* of the record shows the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and cannot be disturbed by this Court.

The district court’s conclusion that the ALMA S was not at fault answers plaintiffs’ argument that the court should have applied the doctrine of comparative fault announced in United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397, 411, 95 S.Ct. 1708, 44 L.Ed.2d 251 (1975). See also Matter of S/S Helena, 529 F.2d 744, 754 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.