Gulf Oil Corporation v. Panama Canal Company
| Decision Date | 29 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 6135. |
| Parties | GULF OIL CORPORATION, as Owner Pro Hac Vice of the Steamship GULFSPRAY, Plaintiff, v. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone |
Burlingham, Underwood, Wright, White & Lord, by Joseph C. Smith, New York City, and DeCastro & Robles, by David de C. Robles, Balboa, Canal Zone, for plaintiff.
Dwight A. McKabney and John L. Haines, Jr., Balboa Heights, Canal Zone, for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On April 2, 1966, plaintiff's vessel, the SS GULFSPRAY, sustained rudder damage when she grounded in the Panama Canal while under the control of defendant's pilot. The question of liability for the accident having been resolved against the Canal Company, 311 F.Supp. 1307 (D.C.Z.1970), aff'd 437 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1971), the case came on for trial on the question of the quantum of damages to which Gulf is entitled.
1. The total amount of Gulf's claim is $143,876.83. The claim is comprised of 23 separate items and includes a demand for prejudgment interest at the rate of 6% from June 23, 1966 to the date of trial, October 7, 1971.
2. Gulf submitted its claim to the Canal Company in October 1969. The Canal Company thereafter analyzed the various items thereof against the provisions of section 293 of Title 2, Canal Zone Code, 76A Stat. 23, the statute prescribing the types of damage which the Canal Company may and may not pay on account of vessel accidents occurring in Canal Zone waters.
3. The analysis of Gulf's claim by the Canal Company resulted in the latter's determination that all or part of 15 items were not allowable under its interpretation of the statute.
4. Section 293 was enacted in 1962. From 1951 until that time, substantially identical provisions governing the measure of damage assessable against the Canal Company in vessel accident cases occurring in Canal Zone waters were contained in section 10(c) of Title 2 of the 1934 Canal Zone Code. Prior to that time, the matter was governed by a series of Presidential executive orders, the first of which was issued in 1923. The text of all of these executive orders was substantially the same as the text of the present statute. This text was drafted in 1918 by the Governor of The Panama Canal, who was at that time authorized by the President to issue rules governing the subject. It has thus continued in the law, in substantially identical terms, for 53 years.
5. Since its creation in 1951, the Canal Company has been the agency of the Government charged with the administration of the statute (first section 10(c) and, subsequently, section 293, Title 2, Canal Zone Code) governing the measure of damages payable against it.
6. During the twenty years that it has administered the statute, the Canal Company has uniformly interpreted it as providing the exclusive measures of the damages payable by it for vessel accidents occurring in Canal Zone waters, and as excluding certain, well-defined categories of claimed damage.
7. The noncorporate entity, The Panama Canal, which ran the waterway until the creation of the Canal Company in 1951, also considered the various executive orders and the Gubernatorial order of 1918 which preceded them, as providing the exclusive measure of damages payable by it in these cases and as excluding the same well-defined categories of claimed damage.
8. The determination by the Canal Company that the disputed items of Gulf's claim were not payable under section 293, was consistent with the construction which has been given to the present statute and its substantially identical predecessor by the Company during the twenty years of its existence. The disallowances were also consistent with the construction given to the Gubernatorial order of 1918 and subsequent Presidential orders by The Panama Canal, the agency which adjusted such claims until the Company's creation in 1951. Although claims for items of damage similar to the ones in dispute here have, in the past, been presented to the Canal Company and The Panama Canal, such items have never been paid by either agency.
9. The interpretation given to the statute by the Canal Company has never before been questioned in litigation. Until this case, all vessel-accident claimants of the Company have accepted the latter's interpretation of the statute as providing the exclusive measure of damages payable by it and as excluding the same types of damage here in dispute. The same is true with respect to claims submitted prior to 1951 to The Panama Canal.
10. GULFSPRAY returned to Balboa on April 3, 1966 for the purpose of making an under water inspection of the vessel to determine the extent of damages sustained by the vessel as the result of striking the bank of the Panama Canal bank on April 2, 1966. At the time she left the Canal Zone waters early in the morning of April 3, she was bound for Yokahama with a full cargo of jet fuel.
11. After determining that the rudder was damaged GULFSPRAY deviated from her voyage and proceeded to San Pedro, California to make repairs to her steering gear damaged by the contact with the Canal bank.
12. It was necessary for GULFSPRAY to discharge her cargo at the Navy depot, San Pedro, prior to proceeding to the repair yard, the repair yard floating dry dock being unable to lift GULFSPRAY while loaded.
13. It was stipulated between the plaintiff and defendant that all expenses claimed were incurred and paid for by plaintiff and the Court so finds.
14. The plaintiff and defendant stipulated and the Court finds that the following items were a result of the GULFSPRAY striking the bank:
15. Plaintiff claims $19,119.42 for the maintenance of the vessel and wages of crew during the detention of the vessel. Defendant concedes that $8,069.08 is allowable against it while the vessel was making repairs in San Pedro. The Court finds that all of the maintenance expenses of the vessel and wages of the crew are actual additional expenses incurred by plaintiff and are in excess of the bareboat charter hire.
16. The evidence shows that the following expenses were incurred necessarily and by reason of the vessel striking the bank in the Canal:
Panama Canal Company
Tug SAN PABLO
Tug assistance to damaged
GULFSPRAY $ 90.00
Panama Canal
Tugs, pilotage and launch hire
required as a result of the vessel's
return to the Canal Zone
for an under water inspection $ 1,436.00
Panama Canal Company
Diver equipment to examine
rudder and appurtenances 353.82
Panama Canal Company wharfage 193.50
Gulf Oil Corporation
Expenses of truck drivers transporting
rudder stock from Philadelphia
to San Pedro and return
to Philadelphia 907.07
Toplis and Harding, Inc
Survey fee 702.60
Gulf Oil Corporation
Expenses of plaintiff's port engineer
attending and supervising
repairs 544.02
Gulf Oil Corporation 68.61
------------
$ 4,295.62
17. The GULFSPRAY was detained eleven days for the purpose of repairing the vessel, including the steaming time, surveys, inspections, discharging and reloading of the vessel. Plaintiff paid $1,899.00 per day charter hire, a total of $20,412.37 for the repair period.
18. The evidence shows that the following expenses that were incurred and for which claim is made were precluded by the criteria established by the Claims Branch of the Panama Canal Company and are not within the statute 2 C.Z.C. 293:
Boyd Brothers
Radio, telegraph and telephone $ 182.24
Howard Hartry, Inc
Fees and services entering and
clearing vessel 35.00
Marine Exchange 9.00
Petroleum Specialist Corporation 11.35
--------
$ 237.59
19. Plaintiff's total expenses incurred necessarily and by reason of the accident are $108,725.66.
20. The interpretation of 2 C.Z.C. 293 by the Claims Branch of the Panama Canal Company is entitled to great weight and not to be overruled without cogent reasons and unless the decisions that have been followed by the Claims Branch are violative of the equities and the desire of Congress to see that persons who are damaged by the actions of the Panama Canal Company are properly compensated.
The witnesses for the defendant quoted entirely from memory relative to the criteria that has been established throughout the years in settling claims of the nature herein, and no manual or well defined rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Oil Corporation v. Panama Canal Company
...time to San Pedro, time required for surveys, inspections, discharging, reloading of the vessel, and making repairs, the District Court, 335 F.Supp. 406, found that a total of 11 days was lost and detention claim items were computed on that Canal Company asserted unsuccessfully that detenti......
-
Natalie Tankships Corp. v. PANAMA CANAL COM'N, Civ. No. 79-0354-B.
...407 F.2d 24, 1969 A.M.C. 1 (5th Cir. 1969) (Gulfspray I), on remand 311 F.Supp. 1307, aff. 437 F.2d 111 (Gulfspray II), supplemented 335 F.Supp. 406, modified 481 F.2d 561, n.9 at 566, 1973 A.M.C. 1582, n.9 at 1586-87, (5th Cir. 1973) (Gulfspray 4 297. Investigation of accident or injury gi......