Transorient Navigators Co. v. M/S Southwind
788 F.2d 288 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court lacks in rem jurisdiction to award contribution against a vessel unless the party seeking contribution has independently arrested the vessel for its claim. Additionally, an innocent plaintiff may recover full damages, including full interest, from a private joint tortfeasor, whose right to contribution from the United States is limited by the statutory caps on interest payable by the government.
Facts:
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted dredging operations in the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), leaving an underwater borrow pit.
- The Corps of Engineers failed to publish information or warn pilots about the configuration of this borrow pit.
- On June 17, 1977, the M/S SOUTHWIND, owned by Westwind Africa Line and controlled by a compulsory pilot, was navigating the MR-GO.
- The M/V ASTROS, owned by Transorient Navigators Co., was also navigating the MR-GO.
- Hydrodynamic forces created by the undisclosed borrow pit caused the SOUTHWIND to sheer uncontrollably across the channel's center line.
- The SOUTHWIND then collided with the ASTROS, causing significant damage to both vessels and to the cargo aboard the SOUTHWIND.
Procedural Posture:
- Multiple parties filed lawsuits that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the court of first instance.
- Transorient sued Westwind in personam and the SOUTHWIND in rem; Westwind sued Transorient in personam and the ASTROS in rem; both Transorient and Westwind sued the United States.
- The district court initially found the SOUTHWIND's pilot 100% at fault and absolved the United States of any liability.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) reversed, finding the district court clearly erred and holding that the United States was also at fault.
- The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to apportion liability based on comparative fault.
- On remand, the district court allocated 80% of the fault to the SOUTHWIND's pilot and 20% to the United States and awarded contribution to the United States against the SOUTHWIND.
- Westwind (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment on remand, and Transorient (appellee) cross-appealed 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 a district court have in rem jurisdiction to award contribution against a vessel when the party seeking contribution has not arrested the vessel, even if the vessel was previously arrested by another party in the same consolidated action and released on a special bond?
Opinions:
Majority - Thornberry, Circuit Judge
No. The district court lacked in rem jurisdiction to award contribution against the SOUTHWIND because the United States failed to follow the required procedures to bring the vessel before the court for its specific claim. The court reasoned that the special bond posted by Westwind for the release of the SOUTHWIND was conditioned solely to answer the judgment in favor of Transorient, the original arresting party. This bond brought the vessel before the court only for the purpose of answering Transorient's claim. For the United States to pursue its own in rem claim for contribution, it was required to independently arrest the vessel under Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, which it failed to do. The court also held that Transorient, as an innocent plaintiff, could recover 100% of its damages and interest from the SOUTHWIND, a joint tortfeasor. The SOUTHWIND's subsequent contribution claim against the United States is limited to the government's percentage of fault plus the statutorily capped 4% interest, as waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for establishing in rem jurisdiction in admiralty law, clarifying that a vessel's presence for one claim via a special bond does not grant the court jurisdiction for other claims without a separate arrest. It also resolves a circuit split regarding contribution from the U.S. government, holding that sovereign immunity's interest limitations cannot be circumvented through contribution claims by a joint tortfeasor. This ruling protects the government's statutory liability cap at the expense of the co-tortfeasor, who must bear the interest shortfall, impacting how damages are allocated in maritime cases involving both private parties and the United States as joint tortfeasors.
