B & F Trawlers, Inc. And International Bank, N.A. v. United States
1988 A.M.C. 1577, 93 A.L.R. Fed. 871, 841 F.2d 626 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception, incorporated from the Federal Tort Claims Act into the Suits in Admiralty Act and Public Vessels Act, shields the government from tort liability for policy-based decisions made during maritime law enforcement, but this immunity does not apply if government agents violate mandatory statutes or regulations in carrying out those decisions.
Facts:
- B & F Trawlers, Inc. owned the shrimp vessel F/V STAR TREK.
- International Bank, N.A. held a $120,000 first preferred ship's mortgage against the STAR TREK.
- B & F Trawlers allegedly reported to the Coast Guard that the STAR TREK had been stolen and was missing.
- On February 23, 1985, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter DALLAS inspected the STAR TREK in the Gulf of Mexico and discovered it was carrying marijuana.
- The Coast Guard arrested the captain and crew and began towing the vessel toward Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
- On February 25, while under tow by the Coast Guard, a fire broke out on the STAR TREK.
- On February 26, after towing the burning vessel, Coast Guard officials used .50 caliber machine guns to sink it.
- B & F Trawlers subsequently defaulted on its loan from International Bank.
Procedural Posture:
- B & F Trawlers, Inc. and International Bank, N.A. filed a complaint against the United States in federal district court, alleging negligence under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) and the Public Vessels Act (PVA).
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that the suit was barred by incorporating the law enforcement exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) into the SIAA and PVA.
- The district court ordered the case to be transferred to the U.S. Claims Court.
- B & F Trawlers and International Bank (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception, incorporated from the Federal Tort Claims Act into the Suits in Admiralty Act and Public Vessels Act, shield the government from tort liability for the seizure and subsequent destruction of a vessel apprehended for drug smuggling?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones
Yes, in principle, the discretionary function exception shields the government from tort liability for its conduct in apprehending and transporting drug-running vessels. The court rejected incorporating the Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA) specific law enforcement exception into the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) and Public Vessels Act (PVA), stating that was a task for Congress. It also dismissed arguments based on separation of powers and the 'uniquely governmental function' doctrine. However, the court affirmed that the FTCA's discretionary function exception is incorporated into the SIAA and PVA. The court reasoned that decisions regarding the apprehension and custody of vessels in drug interdiction efforts are policy-based judgments involving resource allocation and enforcement priorities, which Congress intended to shield from tort liability. This protection is not absolute; it does not apply if government employees violate mandatory agency regulations or directives. Because the lower court did not consider this exception or whether the Coast Guard's actions violated any regulations, the case must be remanded for that analysis.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the government's waiver of sovereign immunity under the SIAA and PVA. By explicitly rejecting the incorporation of the FTCA's law enforcement exception while reaffirming the incorporation of the discretionary function exception, the court established a specific framework for analyzing government liability in maritime law enforcement contexts. The holding strikes a balance, protecting high-level policy decisions essential for effective drug interdiction while still allowing for liability where government agents fail to follow specific, mandatory directives. This creates a critical avenue for plaintiffs to overcome the discretionary function shield by focusing on violations of internal regulations rather than challenging the broader policy decision to seize a vessel.
