Fischer v. Cartwright
| Decision Date | 19 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C-09-02316 EDL,C-09-02316 EDL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | R.C. FISCHER AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES CARTWRIGHT, Defendant. |
Plaintiff R.C. Fisher and Company brought this action for indemnity against Defendant Charles Cartwright arising from a collision between two sailing vessels, Quark Speed and Inkatu, in the San Francisco Bay on June 24, 2007. Plaintiff was the insurance broker for the owners of Quark Speed that paid for a portion of the repairs to Quark Speed on behalf of Quark Speed's owners. Defendant is the owner of Inkatu. The parties consented to a court trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This matter was tried to the Court on July 21 and 22, 2011. Fateh Sahota represented Plaintiff. Ronald Losch and Mark Meyer represented Defendant. The Court received post-trial briefing on August 16, September 9 and September 16, 2011.
At trial, Plaintiff contended that Defendant caused the collision because he violated the Inland Navigational Rules, 33 U.S.C. § 2001, et seq., by, among other things, failing to maintain a proper look-out on Inkatu as required by Rule 5, and failing to yield the right-of-way to Quark Speed, as required by Rule 12. Plaintiff argued that it incurred $83,344.79 in damages caused by Defendant's negligence. Defendant contended that Gilbert Mitchell, the captain of Quark Speed, caused the collision between the vessels by turning into the path of Inkatu at the last minute even though he had not determined that the vessels were on a collision course.
As described in more detail below, the Court finds that the evidence demonstrates that this accident was relatively simple. Defendant's failure to look-out and to yield as the give way vessel, as opined by Plaintiff's expert John Denham, caused the collision and Defendant did not rebut the presumption that these violations of the Rules of the Road caused the accident. The Court notes that Defendant admits that it violated Rule 5, which requires all vessels to maintain a proper look-out. Even if Plaintiff also violated Rules of the Road, the duty to look-out is of the highest importance.
The Court credits the testimony of Mr. Mitchell that he believed the vessels were on a collision course and that as an experienced sailor, he did not need to confirm that belief by using radar or any other device. The Court was not persuaded by Defendant's expert, Susan Arms, who testified that the boats were not on a collision course, although her qualifications were impressive. Further, the Court credits Mr. Mitchell's testimony that the boats were only seventy-five to one hundred feet apart when he realized that Inkatu did not have a look-out and thus likely did not know that Quark Speed was in front of it. Mr. Mitchell's testimony was credible that he turned Quark Speed to the right at the last minute to avoid a collision with Inkatu. The Court also credits Mr. Denham's testimony that Mr. Mitchell took appropriate action to turn into the wind given the lack of a look-out on Inkatu. Thus, Mr. Mitchell acted reasonably in light of the all the circumstances before the collision. Perfection is not required.
With respect to damages, the Court credits the testimony of Mr. Olsson, the President and part-owner of Plaintiff R.C. Fisher, that Plaintiff paid $29,507.78 to Nelson's Marine for some of the repairs to Quark Speed, and that Nelson's Marine invoiced $78,351.32 for all repairs. However, the Court was troubled by the evidence that not all of the items listed on the invoices were actually used and that improvements were made to Quark Speed in lieu of repairing and replacing items allegedly damaged by the collision. Finally, the Court credits the testimony and evidence regarding the salvage claim.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $63,775.34 against Defendant. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Quark Speed is a Catalina 36, a 36-foot long sloop sailing vessel. Trial Transcript (Tr.) at 13. Glibert Mitchell, Wayne Martin and David Marshburn are partners in Quark Speed Partners, and co-own Quark Speed. Tr. at 12-13.
Inkatu is a Tayana 37 cruising sailing vessel. Tr. at 213. Defendant Charles Cartwright owns Inkatu. Tr. at 213.
On June 24, 2007, boat traffic in the San Francisco Bay was moderate to heavy. Tr. at 24-25. The wind was blowing from the west at about fifteen to twenty knots. Tr. at 14, 16, 23, 191. On that day, Mr. Mitchell was sailing Quark Speed in the San Francisco Bay from the Oakland Yacht Club to the San Francisco Yacht Club in Tiburon. Tr. at 19, 21. Mr. Mitchell has over fifty years of sailing experience. Tr. at 13. He raced sail boats off and on for ten to fifteen years. Tr. at 13. He crewed different boats in the San Francisco Bay. Tr. at 14. Mr. Mitchell has taken courses in navigation and seamanship. Tr. at 14. He has also studied books on sailing, including Chapman's, which addresses the Rules of the Road. Tr. at 14. Also on board Quark Speed were Paul Blaise, his then-twenty-three year old daughter, Crystal, and his then-fourteen year old son, Skyler. Tr. 16, 73. The Blaise family had no sailing experience. Tr. at 17.
When Quark Speed could not dock at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Mr. Mitchell decided to head back to the Oakland Yacht Club. Tr. at 21-22. Quark Speed was then traveling in a south-south-easterly direction on a starboard tack with her sails at beam reach at about five or six knots. Tr. at 23-24, 32. Quark Speed was sailing on a fairly steady course. Tr. at 24. Mr. Mitchell intended to sail Quark Speed along the shoreline of the City of San Francisco. Tr. at 23-24, 32.
At the same time, Defendant was sailing the Inkatu from an area south-east of San Francisco to Sausalito. Tr at 38, 189, 190-191. Also on board Inkatu were Defendant's then-wife Gisela, who did not have much sailing experience, and Gabe Turco, an experienced sailor. Tr. at 187-88. Defendant was heading on a steady course toward the north-west on a port tack at about five knots. Tr. at 38, 189-90. The front sail of Inkatu blocked Defendant's view of vessels approaching fromthe north-north-west. Tr. at 194-95. Defendant had instructed his passengers to look out and keep him informed of any oncoming vessels. Tr. at 193, 214. No one informed Defendant of any approaching vessels. Tr. at 194, 224.
Mr. Mitchell first spotted Inkatu when it was approximately 150 yards away. Tr. at 24. Although Mr. Blaise testified that Quark Speed's passengers first noticed Inkatu when it was about 200 - 300 yards away (Tr. at 75), the Court credits Mr. Mitchell's testimony on this point, given the general difficulty in judging distances over water, Mr. Mitchell's extensive sailing experience and Mr. Blaise's lack of sailing experience. Mr. Mitchell could see Inkatu approaching from the port side of Quark Speed. Tr. at 29. Mr. Mitchell told Crystal Blaise that the approaching boat was on a port tack and was required to fall off the wind to miss Quark Speed. Tr. at 29. At that time, Mr. Mitchell believed that Inkatu was on a collision course with Quark Speed. Tr. at 33. Although Mr. Mitchell did not use any particular device or technique to determine whether the vessels were actually on a collision course (Tr. at 57, 59-60), Defendant's expert, Susan Arms, testified that "very good sailors" can visually determine when vessels are on a collision course. Tr. at 388. There was no evidence demonstrating that Mr. Mitchell was anything but a very good sailor with many years of sailing experience.
When Quark Speed was about seventy-five to one hundred feet away from Inkatu, Mr. Mitchell realized that he could not see anyone on board the Inkatu, which indicated that Inkatu was not aware of Quark Speed's presence. Tr. at 30-31. At that point, Mr. Mitchell took steps to avoid a collision by turning into the wind. Tr. at 31-32. Mr. Mitchell trimmed his sails to maintain his speed and was not trying to slow down by turning into the wind, but was trying to alter course to avoid a collision. Tr. at 31-32.
Defendant first saw Quark Speed when it was about thirty feet away. Tr. at 193. He was unable to determine which direction Quark Speed had come from and initially believed it had overtaken Inkatu. Tr. at 196-97. Defendant assumes that Quark Speed was in Inkatu's blindspot. Tr. at 193. Inkatu did not change course until the moment before the collision, when Defendant turned hard to the right. Tr. at 193-94.
Approximately 200 yards west of Alcatraz Island, Intaku struck Quark Speed portside, aboutamidships. Tr. at 36; Ex. 3. Its wooden bowsprit came up over Quark Speed's rail and then swept down, knocking safety lines down, knocking the helm of Quark Speed out of the deck, and knocking Mr. Mitchell and Skyler Blaise into the water. Tr. at 36. Mr. Mitchell was rescued by a passing vessel, Serendipity, and was taken to the hospital. Tr. at 36-37. Paul and Crystal Blaise remained aboard Quark Speed, which had no controls and seemed to be going in circles towards Alcatraz. Tr. at 78. Crystal attempted to lower the main sail, but she was unsuccessful. Tr. at 79. A tow vessel threw a line to Quark Speed and snagged its bow. Tr. at 79, 202. Because Quark Speed's sails were up, the tow vessel had difficulty towing it. Tr. at 79.
Officer Latus of the San Francisco Police Department was quickly on the scene and gave Crystal instructions on lowering Quark Speed's sail, which she was able to do. Tr. at 79. Quark Speed was then towed toward the Oakland Estuary. Tr. at 116. Quark Speed was eventually towed to Nelson's Marine in Alameda. Officer Latus, along with the crew of Inkatu, pulled Skyler Blaise from the water. Tr. at 200-202. After all of the other vessels left the scene, Defendant determined that Inkatu suffered damage that put its mast under stress and...
To continue reading
Request your trial