Rodi Yachts, Inc. v. National Marine, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Torts

TortsAdmiraltyNegligenceComparative faultBailmentCustomadmiraltyrunaway barge

Facts

National Marine's tug delivered and moored its barge at TDI's dock with plastic hawsers, and no one from TDI was present when the barge was tied up. Because TDI delayed obtaining a crane and crew, the barge remained at the dock for nearly five days without anyone inspecting the moorings. The barge then broke free, drifted away, and damaged another dock and two boats. The record did not establish whether the breakaway resulted from improper initial mooring, defective or decayed lines, chafing, or some other cause.

Issue

When a barge breaks loose from a dock after several days and causes damage, how should fault be allocated between the barge owner that moored the vessel and the dock operator that did not inspect it? More specifically, may the court resolve that allocation through presumptions of drifting-vessel fault or bailee fault, or must it make concrete findings about each party's negligence under industry custom and comparative fault principles?

Rule

In admiralty, liability among joint tortfeasors must be apportioned according to relative fault. Between a barge owner and a dock operator, the inquiry is not controlled by labels such as bailment or by drifting-vessel presumptions once evidence has been introduced; instead, the court must determine each party's actual negligence, focusing on the customary allocation of preventive responsibilities and any departures from that custom. Custom typically places the duty of proper initial mooring on the barge owner and the duty of periodic inspection while docked on the dock operator, though notice or other substitute precautions may affect fault allocation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Cedar Bend Towing delivered its grain barge to Harbor South Logistics's dock in St. Louis and secured it with three new lines. Harbor South usually inspects moored barges twice daily, but during a four-day staffing lapse no one checked the lines; one line gradually frayed against a rough piling, the barge broke loose, and it damaged nearby property.

In the resulting admiralty action between Cedar Bend and Harbor South over contribution, which analysis is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that, as between the barge owner and dock operator, the key inquiry is actual negligence measured largely by the customary allocation of preventive responsibilities: proper initial mooring by the owner and periodic inspection while docked by the dock operator. Liability must then be apportioned according to relative fault, rather than assigned automatically through labels or presumptions. (Derived from Rodi Yachts, Inc. v. National Marine, Inc. (n.d.).)