United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.
421 U.S. 397, 95 S.Ct. 1708, 44 L.Ed.2d 251, 1975 AMC 541 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In maritime tort cases involving property damage, liability is to be allocated among the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault, replacing the former rule of divided damages.
Facts:
- Reliable Transfer Co.'s coastal tanker, the Mary A. Whalen, was on a voyage from New Jersey to Island Park, New York.
- On a windy December night, a flashing warning light maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard on a breakwater off Rockaway Point was not operational.
- The captain of the Whalen observed that the light was out as the vessel approached.
- In rough seas with gale-force winds and eight-to-ten-foot waves, the captain executed a 180-degree turn.
- After the turn, the captain, mistakenly believing he was in a safe position, set a new course for the open sea.
- The vessel was actually north of where the captain believed it to be.
- Shortly after setting the new course, the unlit breakwater structure appeared directly ahead, and in maneuvering to avoid it, the Whalen ran aground on a sandbar.
Procedural Posture:
- Reliable Transfer Co. sued the United States in a U.S. District Court under the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The District Court, as the court of first instance, found the United States 25% at fault and Reliable Transfer Co. 75% at fault.
- Applying the existing admiralty rule of divided damages, the District Court held each party liable for 50% of the damages.
- The United States appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's judgment, stating it was constrained by Supreme Court precedent to apply the divided damages rule.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the validity of the divided damages rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the long-standing admiralty rule of divided damages, which requires an equal 50/50 division of property damage whenever both parties are at fault, be replaced by a rule allocating liability in proportion to the comparative fault of each party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. When two or more parties have contributed by their fault to cause property damage in a maritime collision or stranding, liability for such damage is to be allocated among the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault. The historical justifications for the divided damages rule, established in The Schooner Catharine, have eroded over time. The rule was adopted largely because it was the prevailing English rule, but England and nearly every other major maritime nation have since abandoned it for a proportional fault system. The United States' adherence to the archaic rule is an outlier that encourages forum shopping and produces 'palpably unfair results' in cases where one party is only slightly at fault. Arguments that the rule is justified by the difficulty of apportioning fault or that it encourages settlements are unpersuasive, as courts successfully apportion fault in maritime personal injury cases and a rule of fairness is more likely to produce just settlements. As the judiciary has traditionally formulated the rules of admiralty law, the Court has the authority and responsibility to abrogate this outdated, judicially-created doctrine and replace it with a more equitable rule of comparative fault.
Analysis:
This landmark decision explicitly overruled a precedent that had stood for over a century, fundamentally altering liability assessment in American admiralty law for property damage. By replacing the rigid divided damages rule with a more flexible standard of pure comparative fault, the Court aligned U.S. law with the overwhelming international consensus and with its own approach to maritime personal injury cases. This change promotes a more equitable distribution of damages by tying liability directly to the degree of fault, discouraging parties from litigating in hopes of escaping all liability under the 'major-minor' fault exception. The decision ensures that outcomes in maritime property damage cases are based on fairness and the actual culpability of the parties involved, rather than an archaic and arbitrary formula.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.