American River Transp. Co. v. Paragon Marine Serv., 02-2502.

Decision Date02 June 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-2502.,02-2502.
Citation329 F.3d 946
PartiesAMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Appellee, v. PARAGON MARINE SERVICES, INC.; Consolidated Grain and Barge Company, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Steven B. Belgrade, argued, Chicago, IL (John A. O'Donnell and Patrick J. Cullinan, on the brief), for appellants.

Simon P. Tonkin, argued, St. Louis, MO (James O. Hacking, III, on the brief), for appellee.

Before LOKEN1, Chief Judge, RILEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

American River Transportation Company, Inc. (ARTCO) instituted the present action against Paragon Marine Services, Inc. (Paragon) and Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (CGB) (collectively appellants) after a barge, the ING 5565, broke away from a fleet of barges operated by Paragon and CGB. The ING 5565 drifted downstream and collided with other barge fleets, loosening 137 barges as it traveled down river. After a bench trial, the district court2 awarded ARTCO $1,544,713 in damages plus prejudgment interest. Appellants argue the district court erred in finding Paragon failed to overcome the presumption of negligence, and that Paragon was liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and as a bailee. Because the district court did not clearly err in determining the barge broke free due to negligence rather than sabotage, we affirm.

The district court heard the parties' dispute under its admiralty jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h) & 38(e); Koch Fuels, Inc. v. Cargo of 13,000 Barrels of No. 2 Oil, 704 F.2d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir.1983). After empaneling an advisory jury,3 the district court entered judgment in ARTCO's favor, finding the appellants' negligence caused the ING 5565 to breakaway and collide with other fleets. Appellants argued at trial the ING 5565 became loose due to an unforeseeable criminal act of sabotage. In an admiralty case, even with an advisory jury, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954).

When a collision is caused by a vessel drifting from her moorings, the moving vessel is presumed to be at fault unless affirmative proof shows an "inevitable accident, or a vis major, which human skill and precaution ... could not have prevented." The Louisiana, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 164, 173, 18 L.Ed. 85 (1865); see Pasco Mktg., Inc. v. Taylor Towing Serv., Inc., 554 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir.1977). The fleet operator, or mooring vessel, is legally responsible for insuring proper mooring. See Pasco, 554 F.2d at 811. Therefore, the fleet operator, Paragon and CGB, had the burden of proving exoneration from liability. See id.

The undisputed facts presented during the trial were that on April 23, 1998, the ING 5565 was delivered to appellants, whose tug placed the ING 5565 into the Valley Main fleet of barges. On April 24, two of appellants' tugs shifted several barges including the ING 5565. The ING 5565 was then moored at the upstream end of the Valley Main fleet and was the outside barge, about 140 feet from the riverbank. Appellants' crew did not check the moorings between the ING 5565 and the attached barge after the shifting. About three hours later, the ING 5565 separated from its moorings and drifted down river, unattended, in a swift current. The ING 5565, weighing approximately 1700 tons, collided with an ARTCO barge secured to an ARTCO fleet, starting a chain reaction ultimately loosening 137 barges, including 102 barges moored in ARTCO's fleet. Fifteen tugboats, including ARTCO tugboats, responded to the breakaway, intercepting runaway barges and protecting moored vessels.

The district court also found appellants' fleet...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • In re American Milling Co., 4:98CV575SNL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • June 12, 2003
    ...1139 (8th Cir.1984); American River Transportation v. Paragon Marine Services, 213 F.Supp.2d. 1035, 1058 (E.D.Mo.2002), aff'd 329 F.3d 946 (8th Cir.2003). Under the Limitation of Liability Act, a vessel owner19 is entitled to exoneration only if the vessel and its owner are free from fault ......
  • City of Chicago v. M/V Morgan, 03-1789.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 9, 2004
    ...defense cannot be "sustained where it appears that the disaster was caused by negligence." Id.; American River Transp. Co., Inc. v. Paragon Marine Serv., Inc., 329 F.3d 946, 947 (8th Cir. 2003). If applicable, each party is responsible for his respective damages and no liability attaches. T......
  • In re the Complaint of Matteson Marine Serv. Inc., Case No. 08-cv-4023
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Central District of Illinois
    • July 13, 2011
    ...213 F.Supp.2d1035, 1064 (E.D.Mo. 2002) (citing lack of policies and proper supervision in denying limitation of liability), aff'd 329 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2003). Interestingly, Martinson claims that he knew he was supposed to watch the radar closely - yet he admits that he did not. (Doc. 100-......
  • Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Development, LLC, 07-1264.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 13, 2008
    ...claims of error with specific reasons, citations to the record, or relevant legal authority); Am. River Transp. Co., Inc. v. Paragon Marine Servs., Inc., 329 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir.2003) (noting that appellants must raise issues in their opening ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT