Vessel owner not entitled to limit liability for drowning of passenger
September, 2007
By
Marilyn Raia
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Unknown
2007 AMC 1338 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)
Lockheed owned a 34' workboat named LITTLE TOOT II. It was used to transport workers to and from a fixed platform in Cayuga Lake, NY. During heavy weather, a passenger went on deck to help remove the mooring lines so that the LITTLE TOOT II could leave the fixed platform to return to shore. A wave hit the LITTLE TOOT II and the passenger was swept overboard. Before he could be rescued, he drowned.
Lockheed filed a petition to limit its liability to $10,500, the value of the LITTLE TOOT II. Lockheed's subsequent motion for summary judgment was denied.
The District Court first reviewed the history and purpose of the Limitation of Liability Act, formerly at 46 U.S.C. app § 181 et seq. It noted that a two-step analysis must be used to determine whether a vessel owner is entitled to limit its liability: 1) Whether negligence or unseaworthiness caused the accident; and 2) whether the vessel owner had actual knowledge or privity of the negligence or unseaworthiness.
The District Court found various instances of negligence including the inadequate training of the captain, the failure of the captain to instruct the passenger to remain in the cabin, the lack of water rescue equipment, the lack of weather operational guidelines, the lack of a requirement for wearing life-jackets at all times, and the disrepair of the vessel. The District Court also found that Lockheed had knowledge and privity of these conditions through managerial level employees which were imputed to the corporation which was, therefore, precluded from limiting its liability.