Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States

Citation436 F. Supp. 907
Decision Date06 September 1977
Docket NumberNo. 74 Civ. 3358(GLG) and 75 Civ. 5801(GLG).,74 Civ. 3358(GLG) and 75 Civ. 5801(GLG).
PartiesComplaint of TUG OCEAN PRINCE, INC. and Red Star Towing & Transportation Company, as Owner and Charterer of the TUG OCEAN PRINCE, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. PITTSTON MARINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Red Star Towing & Transportation Company, Tug Ocean Prince, Inc., and TUG OCEAN PRINCE and BARGE NEW LONDON, in rem, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Healy & Baillie, New York City, for plaintiffs and third-party plaintiffs; John D. Kimball, New York City, of counsel.

McHugh, Heckman, Smith & Leonard, New York City, for defendant, Pittston Marine Transport Corp.; Maurice F. Beshlian, New York City, of counsel.

Gilbert S. Fleischer, New York City, in charge, for the third-party defendant and plaintiff, United States of America Admiralty & Shipping Section Dept. of Justice; Janis G. Schulmeisters, New York City, of counsel.

FINDINGS OF FACT

GOETTEL, District Judge.

1. At all material times Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. was, and still is, a New York corporation and the owner of the Tug OCEAN PRINCE. Red Star Towing & Transportation Company (hereinafter collectively referred to with Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. as "Plaintiffs"), was, and still is, a West Virginia corporation with an office and principal place of business in New York, and at all material times was the charterer of the Tug OCEAN PRINCE, and manned, victualed, supplied and operated said Vessel.

2. The Tug OCEAN PRINCE is a United States documented, steel hulled, diesel driven, single screw, 1,800 horsepower tugboat built in 1958, having an overall length of 94.7 feet, an extreme breadth of 27.1 feet and a deep draft of about 13 to 14 feet. Her registered gross tonnage is 198 tons and her registered net tonnage is 134 tons.

She was at all material times equipped with direct pilothouse engine controls, a gyro compass, a magnetic compass, a Decca radar and a searchlight. Her chart for the area was a 1969 edition. Although a subsequent edition was available, there were no material differences between the charts in the location and characteristics of the relevant aids. Buoy "21" had been renumbered to Buoy "25".

3. Red Star had no written procedure for supplying its tugs with navigational information or material. The ordering of charts was left to the captain without the office having a system to check what charts and other navigational publications were needed. Red Star had no procedure for checking that this material was obtained by the Captains. On the voyage in question, the OCEAN PRINCE was carrying current editions of the Light List and Coast Pilot.

4. Red Star Towing & Transportation Company (hereinafter singly referred to as "Red Star") is engaged in the business of general towage in the coastal and inland waters of the United States, including New York Harbor and its tributaries.

5. Red Star Marine Services, Inc. is a company which at all material times provided "management services" for Red Star, including "operations" such as booking of work, scheduling and dispatching of tugs to accomplish that work, hiring and firing of personnel, and overseeing the total operation of the Red Star fleet which includes the Tug OCEAN PRINCE.

6. Red Star and Red Star Marine Services, Inc. are related companies, and have the same president, Mr. Robert W. Sanders.

7. Walter Kristiansen at all material times was vice-president of operations of Red Star Marine Services, Inc.

8. The Red Star companies are also related to the Bushey shipyard at Brooklyn, New York and the various Bushey companies in the New York Harbor area.

9. Red Star has offices at 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, where its tug dispatchers are located.

10. The dispatchers of another related company, at all materials times, were located in the same offices, and used the same radios and frequencies.

11. Captains, Relief Captains, Mates and other crew members serving on Red Star tugs are hired by Red Star Marine Services, Inc. but are paid by Red Star.

12. Red Star Marine Services, Inc. had internal requirements for the hiring of navigators, which included a requirement that Tug Captains and Mates it employed either have or obtain a Coast Guard license for the operation of Red Star tugs as a condition to their employment, which company policy preceded subsequent Coast Guard licensing requirements. In addition, when one of the navigators was unfamiliar with the area the tug was dispatched to, Red Star's policy was that the other navigator have extensive experience in and be familiar with the area, and that this man be available to assist the other navigator whenever necessary or if requested by the man on watch.

13. Pittston Marine Transport Corporation (hereinafter "Pittston") is a New York corporation and, at all material times, was engaged in the business of transporting petroleum cargoes by barge in, among other places, New York Harbor and its tributaries. At all material times Pittston owned, operated, manned, victualed and supplied the tank barge NEW LONDON, of 1,665 gross and net tons and having overall dimensions of 295 feet in length and 43 feet in breadth. The Barge is equipped with a pushing well or notch at its stern into which the bow of a pushing tug fits, providing motive power and steering control.

14. The United States of America (hereinafter the "Government") is a sovereign which, under the auspices of the Coast Guard, establishes, maintains and operates an aids to navigation system on the entire length of the Hudson River in the State of New York. It does so under statutory authority to serve, inter alia, the needs of the commerce of the United States. (14 U.S.C. § 81).

15. On February 2 and 3, 1974, the Tug OCEAN PRINCE carried a full crew of six men including two United States Coast Guard licensed (for uninspected towing vessels not more than 200 miles off-shore) navigators, John Kiernan and Walter Reimer, two deckhands, an engineer and a cook.

16. At all relevant times, Mate Reimer held a valid license issued by the United States Coast Guard which gave him authority to serve as operator of uninspected towing vessels upon the inland waters of the United States, including the Hudson River. Reimer had been a Tug Captain for five years, and was qualified generally to serve as a Tug Captain, although he had never before navigated the Hudson River. He had served as a deckhand on tankers on the Hudson River briefly some six years earlier. He worked for Red Star in the capacity of Captain, Relief Captain and Mate, principally on board the OCEAN PRINCE, for a period of one and one-half (1½) years before the voyage in question.

17. Kiernan was also licensed by the Coast Guard and had extensive experience as a Tugboat Captain on the Hudson River which spanned a period of more than 30 years. He was employed by an associated company as a Tug Captain, but was temporarily assigned to Red Star to fill a vacancy on the Tug OCEAN PRINCE and went on board on February 1, 1974.

18. During the voyage in question, Kiernan and Reimer stood alternating six hour watches, with Kiernan standing the 6:00 to 12:00 watches in the morning and evening and Reimer standing the 12:00 to 6:00 watches. One deckhand was assigned to each watch. The Captain or Mate of the watch did the steering and navigating. The deckhand performed various chores, such as line handling, general maintenance on board the tug, and, if requested by the Captain or Mate, lookout duties, steering under the Captain's or Mate's supervision, and getting coffee, all of which were well known to Red Star's vice-president of operations.

19. Prior to the voyage in question, the Tug OCEAN PRINCE had operated in southern waters, in Georgia, Florida, Texas and Louisiana for over a year. During December of 1973 and January of 1974, it operated in and about New York but Reimer was on vacation at that time. He rejoined the Tug in New York on February 2, 1974 at the Bushey shipyard in Brooklyn. Kiernan was already on board. Kiernan had never met Reimer before February 2, 1974, but knew that he was regularly assigned to the OCEAN PRINCE. He was not advised and was unaware of Reimer's lack of familiarity with the Hudson River.

20. While the plaintiffs knew that Reimer lacked familiarity with the Hudson when he rejoined the OCEAN PRINCE on February 2, it was assumed that this lack of experience would be discussed between Reimer and Kiernan when they met on the vessel.

21. Red Star's Personnel Department was responsible for designating the Captain of the Vessel. Red Star intended Kiernan would be Captain. Kiernan indicated doubt in his own mind that he was Captain, but he took certain steps which were appropriately done by the Captain. It is the Captain's duty to know the experience and qualifications of the Mate.

22. On Friday, February 1, 1974, Pittston phoned in an order to Red Star, advising that it would need a tug to tow its Barge NEW LONDON to Kingston, New York sometime during the weekend. The order was entered on a job order card, which was given to the tug dispatcher's office. In response to Pittston's order, the dispatcher, Philip Keenan, decided to assign the Tug OCEAN PRINCE to do the job, and did so at 1800 hours on February 2nd. Keenan did not discuss with Kiernan or Reimer who was to be Captain and who the Mate 23. Keenan was aware of the make-up of the pilothouse crew on the OCEAN PRINCE on February 2nd, and had been told by the day dispatcher, Robert Fitch, that Kiernan was Captain and Reimer was Mate. Keenan was aware of Reimer's lack of experience as a navigator on the Hudson. He decided, however, that the OCEAN PRINCE would be suitable for the voyage since Kiernan, who had extensive experience as a tug navigator on the Hudson River, was on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • United States v. Independent Bulk Transport, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 4, 1979
    ...a fine should be assessed. United States v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 589 F.2d 1305, 1307 (7th Cir. 1978); Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 907, 924 (S.D.N.Y.1977), rev'd on other grounds, 584 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra at 836-3......
  • United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • October 14, 1983
    ...Tamano, 564 F.2d 964, 982 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 941, 98 S.Ct. 1520, 55 L.Ed.2d 537 (1978); Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 907 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 584 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir.1978). It is proper to assume Congress w......
  • Mid–Valley Pipeline Co. v. Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • January 24, 2012
    ...to exclude any penalty imposed pursuant to Section 1321(b)(6).3 [Record No. 14–1, p. 5 (citing Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 907, 926 (S.D.N.Y.1977)) ] However, as Mid–Valley points out, this interpretation was expressly rejected by the Second Circuit in Montauk Oil T......
  • U.S. v. J & D Enterprises of Duluth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • February 5, 1997
    ...enterprise is in the best position to estimate the risk of accidental pollution and plan accordingly"); Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 907, 926 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (absence of defense, and the purposes of penalty provision, lead to the conclusion that there is no right to i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 7 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING OIL AND GAS INTEREST OWNERS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil and Gas Agreements (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...any third party whose acts may in any way have caused or contributed to such [oil spill]." Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F. Supp. 907, 926 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). The rationale of Tug Ocean Prince, if extended, might jeopardize any implied indemnity obligations from an operator to a......
  • Spills of oil and hazardous substances
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...1321(h) as not extending the indemnity cause of action to recovery of the civil penalty. Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States , 436 F. Supp. 907, 926 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Such an interpretation is consistent with the economic or risk-shifting view of the civil penalty here taken, as the part......
  • CHAPTER 1 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING INTEREST OWNERS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Mining Agreements Institute (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...any third party whose acts may in any way have caused or contributed to such [oil spill]". Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 907, 926 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). The rationale of Tug Ocean Prince, if extended, might jeopardize any implied indemnity obligations from an operator to a ......

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