You're viewing Docket Item 003010860944 from the case Frescati Shipping Co Ltd and T, et al v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Company, et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BY:

JACK A. GREENBAUM




693379.00608/7110898v.1



Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

JURISDICTION.........................................................................................................1

OTHER CASES .........................................................................................................1

ISSUES ......................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................2

FACTS .......................................................................................................................6

A.

B.

C.

D.

CARCO’s berth and the approach.........................................................6

The casualty.........................................................................................11

CARCO never inspected for hazards anywhere..................................13

The accident would not have happened if CARCO had found and
reported the anchor..............................................................................15

E.

CARCO’s excuses for not inspecting in the Anchorage.....................17

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................19

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................23

POINT I

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN LIMITING THE
DEFINITION OF AN APPROACH AND HOLDING THE
ANCHOR THEREFORE WAS NOT WITHIN THE
APPROACH .............................................................................23

SCOPE OF REVIEW. ...................................................................................23

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................23

POINT II THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING CARCO
HAD NO DUTY TO INSPECT FOR HAZARDS IN THE
ANCHORAGE..........................................................................28

SCOPE OF REVIEW ....................................................................................28


693379.00608/7110898v.1

i

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



ARGUMENT.................................................................................................29

A.

B.

C.

D.

The Opinion’s grounds for excusing CARCO are erroneous. ............29

CARCO had no valid excuse for not inspecting in the Anchorage. ...34

The circumstances required a high degree of care..............................36

CARCO’s failure to inspect was causal. .............................................40

POINT III THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING CARCO
DID NOT MISREPRESENT A MATERIAL FACT AND
THIS WAS NOT A CAUSE OF THE CASUALTY ...............41

STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................41

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................41

POINT IV THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING OWNER

WAS NOT A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE
SAFE PORT AND BERTH WARRANTIES ..........................49

STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................49

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................49

POINT V THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE

SAFE BERTH AND PORT WARRANTIES WERE NOT
GUARANTEES AND WERE NOT TRIGGERED.................54

STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................54

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................55

A.

B.

C.

The safe port and berth clauses are warranties....................................55

The “named port exception” does not apply. ......................................59

The warranties were breached.............................................................61

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................63






693379.00608/7110898v.1

ii

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/05/2012




CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Agni v. Wenshall (In re New York),

522 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2008) .........................................................................29, 37

American President Lines, Ltd. v. U.S.,

208 F. Supp. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1961).....................................................................61

Berretta v. Tug Vivian Roehrig, LLC,

259 Fed. Appx. 343 (2d Cir. 2007).....................................................................34

Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. City of New York,

135 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1943) ...............................................................................29

Berwind-White Coal-Mining Co. v. Bush Terminal Co.,

296 F. 475 (2d Cir. 1924) ...................................................................................25

Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Tug Gillen Bros.,

389 F. Supp. 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) .......................................................................25

Brotherhood Shipping Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,

985 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1993) ..............................................................................37

Bunge Corp. v. M/V FURNESS BRIDGE,

558 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1977) ..............................................................................59

Butler v. Acme Mkts., Inc.,

445 A.2d 1141 (N.J. 1982) .................................................................................31

The Calvin P. Harris v. Lynn Gas-Light Co.,

33 F. 295 (D. Mass. 1887) ..................................................................................26

Caravel/Woodwind Charters, Inc. v. Tahoe Keys Marina, LLC,

Civ. No. S-05-1435 (FCD) (KJM), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1308 (E.D.
Cal. Jan. 7, 2008) ................................................................................................25

Carleton v. Franconia Iron and Steel Co.,

99 Mass. 216 (1868) ...........................................................................................31


693379.00608/7110898v.1

iii

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Chainey v. Street,

523 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................52

Cities Service Transp. Co. v. Gulf Refining Co.

79 F.2d 521 (2d Cir. 1935) .................................................................................56

Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co.,

826 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1982) ..............................................................................45

Colliers Lanard & Axilbund v. Lloyds of London,

458 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................54

Conway v. O’Brien,

111 F.2d 611 (2d Cir. 1940), rev’d on other grounds 312 U.S. 492 (1941) ......36

Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser,

358 U.S. 423 (1959)......................................................................................52, 53

Daly v. New York Dock Co.,

254 F. 691 (2d Cir. 1918) ...................................................................................25

Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S,

333 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................60

In re Frescati Shipping Co.,

Civ. No. 05-cv-00305, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40020 (E.D. Pa. April 12,
2011) .....................................................................................................................2

The GAZELLE,

128 U.S. 474 (1888)................................................................................33, 38, 62

Gill v. Hango Ship-Owners A/B,

682 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................38

Grand Trunk RR Co. v. Richardson,

91 U.S. 454 (1876)..............................................................................................36

Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman,

223 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2000) .........................................................................36, 37

Hartford & N.Y. Transp. Co. v. Hughes,

125 F. 981 (S.D.N.Y. 1903)................................................................................25


693379.00608/7110898v.1

iv

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Hess v. The ARIZONA,

149 F. Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1955), aff’d 242 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1957) .............45

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Philadelphia Ship Maintenance Co.,

444 F.2d 727 (3d Cir. 1971) ...............................................................................53

In re Kinsman Transit Co.,

338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964) ...............................................................................47

In re Paducah Towing Co.,

692 F.2d 412 (6th Cir. 1982) ..............................................................................37

In re Tug Ocean Prince, Inc.,

584 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1978) .......................................................................34, 38

Johnson v. Kosmos Portland Cement Co.,

64 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1933) ................................................................................48

Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College,

989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993) .............................................................................48

Kunz v. Utah Power & Light Co.,

526 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1975) ..............................................................................38

Lydle v. U.S.,

635 F.2d 763 (6th Cir. 1981) ..............................................................................28

Marant v. Farrell Lines, Inc.,

550 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1977) ...............................................................................59

In re McAllister Bros., Inc.,

609 F. Supp. 616 (E.D. Pa. 1985).......................................................................56

Merritt v. Sprague,

191 F. 627 (D. ME 1911)....................................................................................62

Monaco v. Hartz Mountain Corp.,

415, 840 A.2d 822 (N.J. 2004) ...........................................................................31

MS Tabea Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Board of Commissioners,

Civ. No. 08-3909, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103171 (E.D. La. Sept. 29,
2010), aff’d 636 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2011) ..........................................................26


693379.00608/7110898v.1

v

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Mulraney v. Auletto’s Catering,

320, 680 A.2d 793 (N.J. App. Div. 1996), cert. denied 686 A.2d 764
(1996) ..................................................................................................................32

In re Nautilus Motor Tanker Co.,

85 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 1996) .................................................................................24

In re Nautilus Motor Tanker Co.,

862 F. Supp. 1260 (D.N.J. 1994), aff’d 85 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 1996) ..................48

New Jersey Bank, N.A. v. Bradford Securities Operations, Inc.,

690 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1982) ...............................................................................41

Orduna S.A. v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp.

913 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1990) ......................................................................56, 57

Orvis v. Higgins,

180 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1950) ...............................................................................28

Osprey Ship Mgmt. Inc. v. Jackson County Port Authority,

Civ. No. 05-390-HSO-RHW, 2007 WL 4287701 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 4,
2007) ...................................................................................................................26

P. Dougherty Co. v. Bader Coal Co.,

244 F. 267 (D. Mass. 1917) ................................................................................26

Paragon Oil Co. v. Republic Tankers, S.A.,

310 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied sub nom, Yacimientos
Petroliferos Fiscales v. Paragon Oil Co., 372 U.S. 967 (1963) ........................53

Park S.S. Co. v. Cities Service Oil Co.,

188 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1951) .........................................................................56, 58

Pastore v. Taiyo Gyogyo K.K.,

571 F.2d 777 (3d Cir. 1978) ...............................................................................47

Pease v. Sinclair Refining Co.,

104 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1939) .........................................................................39, 40

Pierce Associates, Inc. v. Nemours Foundation,

865 F.2d 530 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied 492 U.S. 907 (1989) ..................49, 50


693379.00608/7110898v.1

vi

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. v. Commissioner,

743 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1984) ...............................................................................23

Redhead v. U.S.,

686 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1982) ...............................................................................29

Rodriguez v. Brunswick Corp.,

364 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1966) ...............................................................................36

Rohm and Haas Co. v. Adco Chemical Co.,

689 F.2d 424 (3d Cir. 1982) ...............................................................................23

Rossville Salvage Corp. v. S.E. Graham Co.,

319 F.2d 391 (3d Cir. 1963) ...............................................................................57

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs,
552 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1976) ...............................................................................59

Serbin v. Bora Corp.,

96 F.3d 66 (3d Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................48

Slater Fireproof Storage Co. v. Nicholson Transit Co.,

47 F.2d 734 (7th Cir. 1931) ................................................................................25

Smith v. Burnett,

173 U.S. 430 (1899)..........................................................................24, 29, 30, 31

Smith v. Havemeyer,

36 F. 927 (S.D.N.Y. 1888)..................................................................................39

Sonat Marine Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co.,

629 F. Supp. 1319 (D.N.J. 1985), aff’d 787 F.2d 583 (3d Cir. 1986) ................25

SPM Corp. v. M/V MING MOON,

965 F.2d 1297 (3d Cir. 1992) .............................................................................53

Suchomajcz v. Hummel Chem. Co.,

524 F.2d 19 (3d Cir. 1975) .................................................................................48

Swanson v. Baker Industries, Inc.,

615 F.2d 479 (8th Cir. 1980) ..............................................................................28


693379.00608/7110898v.1

vii

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



The T. J. HOOPER,

60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932) .................................................................................34

Tokio Marine Management Inc. v. M/V Zim Tokyo,

91 Civ. 0063 (BN), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7803 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 1995) ..........
...........................................................................................................34, 36, 39, 40

Trans-Orient Marine Corp. v. Star Trading & Marine, Inc.,

925 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1991) .........................................................................28, 41

Tullgren v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.,

133 A. 4 (N.H. 1926) ..........................................................................................39

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba,

683 F.2d 1022 (7th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................37

United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Inc.,

159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947) ...............................................................................37

Venore Transportation Co. v. Oswego Shipping Corp.,

498 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1974) ...............................................................................56

Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc.,

364 U.S. 421 (1960)................................................................................52, 53, 54

West v. City of St. Paul,

936 P.2d 136 (Alaska 1997) ...............................................................................26

Western Bulk Carriers, K.S. v. U.S.,

Civ. S-97-2423, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22371 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 41, 1999).......27

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1291........................................................................................................1

28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) ...................................................................................................1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

The CALLIOPE, [1891] APP. CAS. 11 (House of Lords 1890) ....................................24

J. COOKE, VOYAGE CHARTERS (3d ed. 2007) ......................................................passim


693379.00608/7110898v.1

viii

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



M. STURLEY, 2A BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY (7th ed. 2011)........................................55

Moorcock, 14 P.D. 64 (1889 L.R.) (Court of Appeal 1889)....................................30

The MOORCOCK, 13 P.D. 157 (1888 L.R.) (Probate, Divorce and Admiralty

Division 1888) ....................................................................................................29

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 302(1)(b) (A.L.I. 1965)...........................50

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, § 291(A.L.I. 1965) ............................................27

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 435(1) (A.L.I. 1965) .................................46, 48


693379.00608/7110898v.1

ix

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/05/2012







JURISDICTION

The District Court had admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).

This Court has jurisdiction of this appeal from a final decision after trial, under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. The judgment was entered on April 12, 2011. Appellant filed its

Notice of Appeal on June 10, 2011, having been granted 60 days because the

United States is a party.

OTHER CASES



This case has not previously been before this Court, and counsel are not

aware of any related case.

ISSUES

1.

Did the District Court err in defining an approach to a berth as the

immediately adjacent area or the immediate access, and holding, therefore, the

place where M/T ATHOS I struck an uncharted anchor a ship-length away was not

within the approach?

2.

Did the District Court err in holding Defendants/Appellees owed no

duty to invited vessels to inspect for dangerous obstacles in a part of the federal

anchorage through which those vessels approached their berth, because they did

not control the use of the anchorage, and no custom or regulation put them on

notice to inspect?


693379.00608/7110898v.1

1

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 18 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



3.

Did the District Court err in holding Defendants/Appellees did not

misrepresent a material fact when they advised ATHOS I the maximum allowable

draft at their facility was 38’ and failed to warn that, before ATHOS I arrived, they

reduced it to 36’, and this was not a cause of the accident, despite the fact that the

vessel would not have approached early in the rising tide had the Master known?

4.

Did the District Court err in holding the vessel and ship-owner were

not third-party beneficiaries of the safe port and berth warranties in the sub-

voyage-charter-party between the time-charterer and Defendants/Appellees?

5.

Did the District Court err in holding safe port and berth warranties are

merely promises to exercise due diligence, were waived because the Master knew

generally of debris on the riverbed, and were satisfied because the port was

“generally safe?”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE



This is an appeal from a Judgment and Opinion after bench trial by Hon.

John P. Fullam of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which held an oil terminal

was not liable for damage to a tanker and “devastating ecological results” JA-

6(Op.) when a cargo tank was pierced by an uncharted anchor protruding above the

Delaware River bottom as the ship approached the jetty. In re Frescati Shipping

Co., Civ. No. 05-cv-00305, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40020 (E.D. Pa. April 12,

2011) JA-6-23(Op.). The decision should be reversed and the case remanded for


693379.00608/7110898v.1

2

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 19 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



findings regarding Defendants/Appellees’ allegation the vessel was negligent, and

the ship-owner’s damages.



On November 26, 2004, M/T ATHOS I (“ATHOS”) was approaching

Defendant/Appellee Citgo Asphalt Refining Company’s (“CARCO”) berth, pushed

sideways by tugs through a federal anchorage, and only about one ship-length

away, when she suddenly listed and oil was seen in the water. It was later

ascertained a cargo tank was holed by an uncharted 7’3” long anchor, which had

been there more than three years. JA-10-11(Op.).



ATHOS’ owner and manager, Plaintiffs/Appellants Frescati Shipping Co.

and Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. (collectively “Owner”), incurred $180

million in clean-up costs and damages. The Coast Guard found Owner complied

with all regulatory requirements and limited its strict liability for clean-up costs.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed Owner $88 million.



Owner filed a Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, in

which CARCO asserted a cargo claim. JA-7(Op.). Owner asserted counterclaims

in tort for CARCO’s failure to exercise a berth-owner’s duty of care, and for

negligently misrepresenting the maximum allowable draft at its facility, which it

reduced without warning the ship. (“Draft” is the distance from the water’s surface

to the ship’s bottom.) Owner also claimed in contract as third-party beneficiary of

the safe port and berth warranties in the sub-voyage-charter between Owner’s


693379.00608/7110898v.1

3

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 20 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



time-charterer and CARCO. The Government also sued in contract, as Owner’s

subrogee. JA-7-8, 11-12, 18(Op.).



CARCO disclaimed responsibility because the accident occurred in a federal

anchorage. The Court held CARCO was not liable, but not because it happened in

federal waters. It held CARCO had no duty to inspect for hazards in the anchorage

because it limited the definition of “approach” as a matter of law to the area

immediately adjacent to or the immediate access to the berth. JA-13-15(Op.).

Additionally, it excused CARCO because, based on the volume of traffic that used

the anchorage, CARCO did not control its use, and no custom or regulation put

CARCO on notice it should inspect there. JA-14-15(Op.).

The Court also noted the Government had no statutory or regulatory duty to

and did not inspect for hazards, absent notice of a specific hazard, for lack of a

Congressional mandate and funding. JA-11, 13(Op.).



CARCO’s witnesses admitted anchorages are known to be scattered with

debris, including anchors, and that ATHOS was in the normal approach to its

berth. However, CARCO never inspected for such hazards in its own declared

“area of responsibility,” infra, much less in the approach through the federal

anchorage. Had the anchor been discovered, the Government would have removed

it, or warned docking pilots and mariners of its presence. JA-11(Op.). Forewarned,

ATHOS would have awaited a higher tide and/or insisted CARCO off-load some


693379.00608/7110898v.1

4

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 21 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



cargo into a barge to reduce ATHOS’ draft, and sailed over the anchor. JA-

12(Op.).

The result of the Opinion is that no one has a duty to ensure the actual

geographic approaches to marine terminals through public waters in the United

States are safe from uncharted hazards to navigation. Marine terminals, however,

are the only ones with the wherewithal—and duty—to inspect their approaches,

given the Government’s lack of duty and funds, and the impracticability of ship-

owners conducting underwater inspections everywhere charterers order their ships

to go. The importance of an oil terminal’s duty in particular, and of this appeal, is

to prevent oil spill catastrophes, not just to allot the costs after the damage is done.

The Court denied the misrepresentation claim because CARCO’s reduction

in the maximum allowable draft was “factually irrelevant,” notwithstanding that

ATHOS would not have approached when she did had the Master known of the

change. JA-16(Op.). The Court reasoned the depth of the berth alongside the jetty

did not change, the stage of tide at which ships could safely approach did not

change, and the reduction in maximum allowable draft did not cause the casualty.

JA-17(Op.). There was no mention of the shallow bottom directly in front of the

berth, through which ATHOS would have been pushed, infra.



The Court rejected the contract claim, holding Owner was not a third-party

beneficiary, the warranties were only a promise to exercise due diligence, any


693379.00608/7110898v.1

5

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 22 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



warranty was waived because the Master knew of a general risk of debris on the

riverbed, and the anchorage was “generally safe” in view of the volume of vessels

that used it, without regard to where those ships were located in the 2.2 mile long

anchorage, and whether ships that went to CARCO approached at higher tide than

ATHOS. JA-19-22(Op.).



CARCO argued the vessel’s draft was excessive, she was unseaworthy, and

the pilot and crew were negligent. Those issues are not before this Court.

FACTS

On October 1, 2001, Owner time-chartered ATHOS into Star Tankers, Inc.’s

Tanker Pool. JA-8(Op.); JA-1114-1154(P-354/Pool-Agreement); JA-1156-1187/P-

355/Time-Charter). On November 12, 2004, Star Tankers sub-voyage-chartered

the vessel to CARCO for one voyage from the Caribbean Sea to any of several

geographic ranges. JA-8-9(Op.); JA-1219-1239(P-357/Voyage-Charter). CARCO

subsequently ordered the ship to transport a cargo of heavy crude oil from

Venezuela to its asphalt refinery in Paulsboro, N.J. JA-9(Op.).

A. CARCO’s berth and the approach.

CARCO is located on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, near the

entrance to Mantua Creek, about 80 miles from the river’s mouth. The jetty

comprises a pier between two mooring dolphins. It was designed to accept ships

up to 1,000’ long. JA-1552(D-196/Guide to Port Entry); JA-1106(P-61/Terminal


693379.00608/7110898v.1

6

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 23 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Data Sheet); JA-1092(P-5/CARCO Operations Manual). ATHOS is 748’ long.

JA-8(Op.).

Ships navigate up the river through a dredged channel (“the Channel”),

which, opposite CARCO’s berth, is on the Pennsylvania side. The Channel is

divided into “ranges” as the Channel changes direction.

The jetty and waterway are seen on navigation charts and aerial

photographs. The ranges near CARCO (Tinicum, Billingsport, and Mifflin) are

identified on the navigation charts. JA-1248(P-461(b)/BA chart-excerpt); JA-

2091(D-1918/NOAA chart-excerpt). Mantua Creek is indicated by a red “6” and

CARCO’s berth by an arrow and a red “8” on chart 2604. JA-1248(P-461(b)); JA-

1028:4-1029:6, JA-1030:25-1031:6(Teal). The Mantua Creek Anchorage, also

known as Federal Anchorage No. 9 (“the Anchorage”), is in green on chart 12313.

The red triangle is CARCO’s self-declared “area of responsibility.” JA-2091(D-

1918); JA-894:2-6, JA-924:5-12(Rankine).

An aerial photograph shows the jetty and waterway, with the boundaries of

the Anchorage and Channel superimposed, along with ATHOS’ to-scale outline in

the berth. The yellow lines mark the grid followed by CARCO’s depth surveyor,

ST Hudson Engineering, Inc. (“Hudson”). JA-1258(P-992).


693379.00608/7110898v.1

7

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 24 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Another similar photograph has superimposed on it the culprit anchor, other

subsequently-discovered large objects, and a representation of ATHOS. JA-

1264(P-1153).

Tankers berthing during the flood (i.e. rising) tide, like ATHOS, approach

from Mifflin Range by making a 180° turn to starboard into the southern end of the

Anchorage with two tugs at the bows. The tugs then line up fore and aft on the

starboard side and push the ship sideways to CARCO’s jetty. JA-208:16-209:16,

JA-214:5-215:3, JA-227:6-229:14(Bethel), discussing JA-1248(P-461(b)/chart-

excerpt), JA-1256(P-990/aerial-photograph); JA-902:9-903:1(Rankine).

The Anchorage is 2.2 miles long, or nearly 12,000’, but turning a tanker

180° uses only 1,000’ of space at the southern end, marked by two red lines on

chart 2604. JA-11 n. 2 (Op.); JA-818:7-10, JA-824:5-10(Myhre); JA-227:4-15, JA-

228:4-18(Bethel); JA-1248(P-461(b)/chart-excerpt).

The Anchorage’s boundary is less than 600’ from CARCO’s pier, and the

Channel’s boundary is another 1,400’. The Channel is less than 2,000’ from the

pier—

two ship-lengths.

JA-1258(P-992/aerial photograph); JA-1250(P-

687/Channel Depth Statement). The outer edge of the berth is closer to the

Channel and Anchorage by the breadth of a ship’s beam. ATHOS’ beam is

105’6”. JA-8(Op.).


693379.00608/7110898v.1

8

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 25 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



The somewhat triangular area CARCO calls its “area of responsibility” was

too small to turn a tanker around, measuring about 100’ to the Anchorage from the

downstream end and 650’ from

the upstream end. JA-1258(P-992/aerial

photograh); JA-2091(D-1918/NOAA chart-excerpt); JA-1660(D-757/Permitted

Dredge Area); JA-922:20-23(Rankine); JA-487:13-23, JA-497:1-6, JA-497:24-

498:10(Drager). Therefore, tankers calling at CARCO had to use the Anchorage as

a turning basin.

CARCO’s self-declared “area of responsibility” was based on a dredging

permit obtained by the owner of the facility before CARCO bought it in 1991, and

CARCO simply continued to inspect the same area for depth. JA-948:19-

949:19(Rankine); JA-690:14-691:16, JA-695:25-696:16, JA-715:24-716:14, JA-

724 at p. 26:21-27:5(Long); JA-488:6-10, JA-496:17-497:18(Drager); JA-1660(D-

757/Permitted Dredge Area). The area in the dredging permit was designated by

the terminal-owner itself, not the Government. The permit is merely the

Government’s consent to dredge where the terminal-owner asked. It is not a

limitation on where CARCO could survey for depth or hazards. The Government

does not designate any “area of responsibility.” JA-445:18-446:7, JA-461:10-23

(DePasquale); JA-827:9-24, JA-829:19-830:23(Olson); JA-719:8-24(Long).

Since August 1999, the Docking Pilots Association’s (“the Pilots”)

guidelines provided vessels having drafts from 35’ to 37½’, like ATHOS, should


693379.00608/7110898v.1

9

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 26 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



approach CARCO’s dock during a window between the beginning of flood tide

and one hour after high water, and required they be turned around to face down-

river into the flood current, port-side to the jetty. JA-861:7-863:22, JA-868:10-

871:17, JA-872:11-873:24, JA-876:24-877:9(Quillen); JA-209:12-13, JA-224:17-

22, JA-244:18-22(Bethel); JA-941:18-945:7(Rankine); JA-1102(P-51/Docking

Pilots Memo), JA-1104(P-52/1999 Docking Pilots Guidelines). Owner contends

ATHOS’ draft was 36’7”, although CARCO maintains it was greater, which is a

matter for remand. JA-20-21(Op.).

Prior to August 1999, the Pilots had restricted berthing of vessels with 36’-

40’ drafts to high stages of tide, between two hours before and 1½ hours after high

water. JA-941:18-JA-945:7(Rankine); JA-662:22-JA-663:16, JA-676:15-JA-677:9,

JA-677:13-21(Kamat); JA-1696-1698(D-795/1998 Docking Pilots Guidelines);

JA-1099(P-48/1998 Port Captain Summary). Thus, in 1999, the window was

opened four hours earlier, near low water, reducing the available depth of water by

four or five feet. JA-864:7-870:22; JA-874:8-10(Quillen); JA-331:21-332:14, JA-

333:25-334:9(Brooking); JA-212:25-213:2, JA-244:18-245:15(Bethel); JA-192:16-

198:3, JA-202:12-21(Bergin). This change was made at CARCO’s request, to save

demurrage costs (charges for a ship’s waiting time) by avoiding vessels over 36’

draft having to wait for a later window. JA-1099(P-48/198 Port Captain Summary).




693379.00608/7110898v.1

10

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 27 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



B. The casualty.

ATHOS sailed up-river under the guidance of Delaware River Pilot Captain

Howard Teal. JA-1028:4-23, JA-1029:5-6, JA-1032:7-12(Teal). At the upstream

end of Tinicum Range, the ship took on an experienced federally-licensed Docking

Pilot, Captain Joseph Bethel. JA-208:16-209:16, JA-211:25-212:4(Bethel); JA-

1033:3-8(Teal). Bethel boarded at 8:30 p.m. and took the con at 8:40. (Bethel

JA-215:19-24(Bethel). It takes 20 to 40 minutes to get to CARCO’s berth from

when he took the con. JA-210:12-17, JA-217:1-3(Bethel).

Bethel proceeded into Mifflin Range shortly after the beginning of flood

tide, pursuant to the Pilots’ guidelines, then executed the 180° turn. JA-216:5-19,

JA-217:25-219:8; JA-225:5-10, JA-244:18-22, JA-250:20-251:16(Bethel); JA-

1034:11-1035:12(Teal); JA-354:9-22, JA-355:22-356:19(Capone). At 9:02 p.m.,

22 minutes after Bethel took the con, and while being pushed sideways, ATHOS

suddenly listed to port. At that time, the ship was halfway through the Anchorage,

in front of and only 900’ away from the jetty, or 800’ from the berth’s edge—about

a ship-length. JA-6, 10(Op.); JA-220:7-12, JA-247:10-13(Bethel); JA-779:3-

11(Markoutsis); JA-1070:21-1071:25, JA-1079:16-22(Zotos); JA-507:22-508:15,

JA-509:23-510:22, JA-512:5-12(Esplana); JA-1045at p. 12:8-13, JA-1047at p.

34:14-21(Thompson).


693379.00608/7110898v.1

11

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 28 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



The crew was already on deck to heave the mooring lines, CARCO’s line

handlers were standing by, and the ship was close enough for the crew to be heard

ashore. JA-910:7-17(Rankine); JA-1073:8-25(Zotos); JA-509:9-12, JA-509:23-

510:22(Esplana); JA-247:10-16(Bethel); JA-856:4-8(Peck).

ATHOS followed the customary route and manner of approaching

CARCO’s berth from the Channel, as attested by pilots Teal and Bethel, the Pilots’

Manager Quillen, and Owner’s pilotage expert Betz. JA-1036:16-23(Teal); JA-

228:4-18(Bethel);

JA-875:5-12(Quillen);

JA-253:12-259:12,

JA-268:24-

269:9(Betz).

CARCO’s Terminal Manager Drager, Port Captain Rankine, and dock-men

Peck and Thompson, all acknowledged the vessel followed the normal approach.

Drager acknowledged all CARCO’s invited tankers have to cross the Anchorage.

Rankine said tankers turn around “[a]t the same spot where the ATHOS I

apparently hit an anchor, just coming out of the channel into the anchorage,” and

“just about all” the ships that berth there go over the site where the accident

occurred.1 JA-902:9-18, JA-903:11-16, JA-951:1-5, JA-2320 at p. 43:18-

44:3(Rankine); JA-505:4-11(Drager); JA-849:2-6, JA-850:18-851:1, JA-852:17-

853:2, JA-854:7-855:17(Peck); JA-1046-1047 at p. 33:19-34:1, JA-1048 at p.

44:10-19(Thompson).


1 Underscoring is added throughout this Brief.

12


693379.00608/7110898v.1

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 29 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



It was later ascertained the ship contacted a 7’3” long uncharted abandoned

anchor. JA-686:3-687:13, JA-688:13-17(Langford). The parties stipulated the

anchor had been there over three years, because it appeared as a “target” on a side-

scan sonar in an independent geophysical study by the University of Delaware in

2001. JA-514:22-516:24, JA-524:6-10(Fish); Traykovski JA-1050:14-1052:12, JA-

1056:2-5; JA-1310-1312(P-1318/Stipulation).

The anchor tore holes in a cargo tank and a ballast tank. JA-1074:19-

1075:7(Zotos); JA-1262(P-1090/Photograph-Hull Bottom Plate).

The crew

quickly stopped the oil leak by transferring cargo to other tanks, but not before

“devastating

ecological

results.”

JA-6(Op.);

JA-729:9-25,

JA-744:6-

745:10(Markoutsis); JA-1076:6-1078:3(Zotos); JA-221:23-222:14(Bethel).

The Coast Guard determined Owner complied with its regulatory obligations

and could limit its strict liability for clean-up costs to $45.4 million. The Oil Spill

Liability Trust Fund therefore reimbursed Owner $88 million. JA-787:8-794:10,

JA-795:17-25, JA-797:10-800:7(Morrison); JA-640:10-642:10(Hellberg).

C. CARCO never inspected for hazards anywhere.

CARCO’s Port Captain Rankine, who held that position since January 2002

JA-894:2-6(Rankine),

and his predecessor, Ranjit Kamat

JA-662:22-

663:16(Kamat), as well as Technical Services Manager Williams, all

acknowledged the Delaware River bottom, including in the anchorages, is known


693379.00608/7110898v.1

13

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 30 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



locally to be scattered with potentially hazardous debris, including, specifically,

lost anchors. JA-969 at p. 248:23-249:12(Rankine); JA-673:24-675:12(Kamat);

JA-1068 at p. 139:9-12, JA-1068at p. 140:6-13(Williams); See also Capone JA-

357:13-362:1(Capone). Yet, CARCO never even considered inspecting for

potentially hazardous obstructions in its declared area of responsibility, or in the

approach through the Anchorage, even after persuading the Pilots to bring ships in

near low water. It only inspected for water depth in its so-called area of

responsibility. JA-503:23-504:1(Drager); JA-962 at p. 148:8-18, JA-964at p.162:3-

10, JA-965-966 at p. 172:12-174:5; JA-967at p.193:20-24(Rankine); JA-668:23-

669:9, JA-670:14-672:3(Kamat); JA-711:11-13(Long).

The Opinion remarks that CARCO did inspect its berth, but omits to say this

was only for depth, not obstacles. JA-13(Op.).

CARCO’s surveyor, Hudson, ascertained depth by single-beam sonar, or

echo sounder. This does not identify the nature of what the beam touches, or

whether it is the river bottom or an obstacle. The grid lines followed by Hudson’s

boat conducting a single-beam survey were, at 50’ intervals, too far apart to detect

objects between the lines. JA-526:19-527:20(Fish); 368:8-369:13(Capone); JA-

692:12-694:2, JA-697:8-23(Long). Hudson’s annual depth surveys were not

designed or intended to detect obstacles, as acknowledged by its Chief Operating


693379.00608/7110898v.1

14

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 31 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



Officer, Richard Long, and CARCO’s expert witness, George Cole. JA-696:19-

698:5(Long); JA-392:22-397:21, JA-403:8-18(Cole).

D. The accident would not have happened if CARCO had found and reported

the anchor.

There are several ways to survey for underwater obstacles, including side-

scan sonar, multi-beam sonar, and low-tech wire drag. JA-516:13-24; JA-538:10-

539:1(Fish); JA-452:18-453:3(DePasquale); JA-834:12-835:6(Olson); JA-721:18-

25(Long); JA-403:19-23(Cole). Hudson could conduct a side-scan survey, but

Rankine never engaged it to do so, or even discussed it with Hudson. JA-949:20-

950:3, JA-961at p. 143:17-144:4, JA-962 at p. 146:14-147:20, JA-962 at p. 148:8-

18; JA-963at p. 154:17-24; JA-963at p. 156:20-24(Rankine); JA-711:11-13, JA-

717:1-16; JA-725at p. 44:24-45:6(Long).

The cost of a side-scan survey two ship-lengths from CARCO’s jetty to the

New Jersey edge of the Channel would have been as little as $7,500 to $11,000.

JA-362:22-363:9, JA-364:19-365:22(Capone), discussing JA-1256(P-990/Aerial

photograph). Long estimated it would cost $25,000 to $30,000. JA-715:12-19, JA-

717:8-24(Long).

All the experts agreed the anchor would have been easy to detect on a side-

scan survey. JA-528:2-4(Fish); JA-1053:4-21, JA-1055:7-1058:6, JA-1063:10-

25(Traykovski); JA-335:18-336:20(Brooking); JA-365:23-367:17(Capone); JA-


693379.00608/7110898v.1

15

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 32 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



727 at p. 86:4-12(Long). It appeared on the 2001 University of Delaware scan and

all

the

scans

after

the

casualty.

JA-524:2-10(Fish);

JA-1055:23-

1056:23(Traykovski); JA-836:15-25(Olson). A scan may not identify what an

object is, but it would identify a sizeable, potentially hazardous “target.” JA-

1063:10-21(Traykovski); JA-517:9-518:18(Fish). The scans after the accident

detected several sizeable objects in the approach, including a 15’ pump casing and

an 8’ concrete block within 200’ of the anchor. JA-523:15-21(Fish); JA-836:15-

25(Olson); JA-1264(P-1153/Aerial photograph).

Upon seeing such an object on the scan, CARCO could simply have

informed the Government, which would have sent divers to investigate, and

removed the anchor, or charted it and warned the docking pilots and mariners in a

Notice

to Mariners. JA-11(Op.); JA-158:20-161:21, JA-183:16-24, 186:5-

23(Barnum);

JA-453:15-455:24(DePasquale);

JA-103:10-104:15,

JA-112:21-

113:16(Adams); JA-1713 at ¶ 25(D-1108/Coast Pilot).

Forewarned, ATHOS would have waited until high water, when it would

have had five feet more depth of water, and/or insisted CARCO discharge some of

the cargo into a barge to reduce ATHOS’ draft, and passed harmlessly over the

anchor. When the ship struck the anchor, there remained four hours before high

tide. JA-592:7-23(Hajimichael); JA-882:14-883:8(Quillen); JA-212:25-213:2, JA-

244:18-245:15(Bethel); JA-202:12-25(Bergin).


693379.00608/7110898v.1

16

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 33 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



E. CARCO’s excuses for not inspecting in the Anchorage.

Rankine labored under the unfounded assumptions that his responsibility

was limited to the area in the dredging permit, and that CARCO was not legally

permitted to survey in federal waters. JA-922:20-923:4; JA-924:5-24; JA-959 at p.

82:17-84:2, JA-965at p. 173:16-22(Rankine); JA-497:24-498:10(Drager); JA-

1258(P-992/Aerial photograph); JA-2091(D-1918/NOAA chart-excerpt).

Rankine testified: “I had no responsibility for the approaches to the berth.

My responsibility is at the berth.” JA-957 at p. 77:23-25(Rankine). “We had

nothing to do with the approaches, the approaches are the Army Corps of

Engineers.” JA-938:15-19(Rankine).

Rankine was not correct in assuming CARCO could not survey in the

Anchorage. It could have surveyed the approach through the Anchorage for

obstacles without a permit, as testified without contradiction by the Army Corps of

Engineers’ Chief of Operations Division, Philadelphia, Anthony DePasquale,

Hudson’s C.O.O. Long, and Owner’s expert witness on hydrographic surveys,

Vincent Capone. JA-445:18-446:7, JA-459:16-460:13(DePasquale); JA-690:14-

691:16, JA-718:15-20(Long); JA-354:9-22, JA-363:10-15(Capone).

In fact, Hudson did survey for depth out to 800’ from CARCO’s jetty, or as

much as 600’ into the Anchorage at the downstream end, with no need for a

permit. JA-1258(P-992/Aerial photograph); JA-706:19-708:5, JA-714:2-7, JA-


693379.00608/7110898v.1

17

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 34 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



718:2-16(Long); JA-369:1-8(Capone); Brooking JA-337:9-338:21(Brooking).

Rankine was aware of this, as he reviewed all Hudson’s surveys back to 2001. JA-

907:17-908:8(Rankine).

No one outside CARCO ever told Rankine he could not inspect in, or had no

responsibility for, the approach within the Anchorage. His only conversation about

surveying in federal waters was with an in-house lawyer, involving the Calcasieu

River in Louisiana. JA-966 at p. 174:9-175:6, JA-966 at p. 176:21-177:8(Rankine).

As to CARCO’s declared “area of responsibility,” Rankine testified he relied

on Hudson to tell him if any obstructions were found, but he only asked Hudson to

survey for depth, never for obstructions. JA-961-962 at p.145:3-146:4, JA-972-

973at p. 25:25-26:14(Rankine). Hudson did not even analyze the survey data, but

just passed the soundings to Rankine. JA-698:6-14(Long).



Kamat and Rankine had no knowledge of underwater survey techniques or

how to survey for obstacles, and received no such training from CARCO. JA-

664:16-24; JA-665:18-666:5; JA-666:24-667:12; JA-670:14-671:6; JA-678:9-

18(Kamat); JA-937:25-939:7, JA-954-955 at p. 41:17-42:9; JA-955at p. 43:7-12;

JA-956 at p. 56:11-23, JA-960 at p. 116:1-7; JA-960at p. 116:21-117:6(Rankine).



Rankine, and before him Kamat, were in charge of Marine Safety, including

the berth, but they had no such experience or expertise when they were hired, and

received no training from CARCO. JA-894:21-24, 895:9-11, 937:15-939:7; JA-955


693379.00608/7110898v.1

18

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 35 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



at p. 43:7-12, JA-957 at p. 75:3-23, JA-957at p. 76:13-20(Rankine); JA-489:5-

492:14(Drager); JA-664:21-24, JA-666:24-667:12(Kamat).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT



There is no dispute that the law imposes upon a berth-owner a duty to

ascertain the condition of its berth and the approach thereto, and remove any

hazards or warn invited vessels of their presence. There is no dispute that ATHOS

was in the usual approach to CARCO’s berth when she struck the uncharted

anchor. There is no dispute that CARCO never inspected its berth or the approach

for hazards. It is CARCO’s burden to show a sufficient excuse for its failure.



The Court erred in excusing CARCO by ignoring the undisputed actual

approach and arbitrarily delimiting “approach” to a point immediately adjacent to

or the immediate access to the berth, and, additionally, because it lacked “control”

over the use of the Anchorage, and no custom or regulation put it on notice it

should inspect.



A berth-owner’s duty to inspect is not conditioned on “control.” Further, the

Opinion’s remark about “control” was based on an erroneous characterization of

the volume of traffic in the southern end of the Anchorage, for which there was no

evidence. Deep-draft vessels did not normally navigate through or anchor in the

small area through which tankers are pushed sideways to CARCO’s berth, and


693379.00608/7110898v.1

19

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 36 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



vessels that went to CARCO may have approached at high stages of tide due to

their size or draft, the berth’s availability, or the time they arrived in the area.



The supposed absence of a custom or regulation notifying CARCO of a need

to inspect in the Anchorage does not obviate its common law duty.



CARCO had no excuse for failing to inspect. The cost was small and the

approach route from the Channel was finite and measurable. It was not legally

prohibited from inspecting. It knew or should have known the Government did not

inspect for hazards. It did not assume the Government did so, and never asked,

because it admittedly paid no attention to what the Government did.







No other excuse was proffered by CARCO or the District Court.

As CARCO took no precautions whatsoever regarding submerged objects, it

breached even the most minimal standard of care. However, the degree of care

reasonably required in the circumstances was anything but minimal, while the

effort needed to satisfy that high standard was small. In any situation, the required

degree of care depends on the circumstances, and should be determined by the

probability of a hazard and the magnitude of the potential injury, weighed against

the burden of taking precautions. There is no dispute that the foreseeable

magnitude of damages was catastrophic and the cost of inspecting the approach

was small. The probability of hazardous obstacles was real, as CARCO’s

witnesses admitted they expect to find anchors and other objects in anchorages.


693379.00608/7110898v.1

20

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 37 Date Filed: 04/05/2012



This is the very reason the law imposes on berth-owners a duty to ascertain the

condition of their berths and approaches. The need for care became even greater in

1999, when CARCO reduced its demurrage costs by persuading the Pilots to berth

tankers at a low stage of tide. Even that increase in risk did not wake CARCO

from its complacence.



An additional cause of the accident was CARCO’s erroneous representation

of the maximum draft its facility could accommodate safely, and its failure to warn

ATHOS that the allowable draft was subsequently reduced and there were shallow

places in front of the berth through which the ship would be pushed. Forewarned,

ATHOS would not have approached so early in the rising tide and would have

passed cleanly over the anchor. Therefore, the Court erred in holding this was not a

material fact or a cause of the accident. Depriving ATHOS of information that

would have enabled her to avoid both shoals and submerged objects was a

proximate cause of striking the submerged anchor.



The Court also erred in holding Owner was not the third-party beneficiary of

the safe port and berth warranties in the sub-voyage-charter, given the absence of

ambiguity in that contract, the Supreme Court’s holdings that ship-owners are

third-party beneficiaries of contractual warranties that stevedores owe to the cargo-

owners who hire them, and the Second Circuit’s similar holding regarding a safe

berth warranty in a sub-charter-party.


693379.00608/7110898v.1

21

Case: 11-2576 Document: 003110860944 Page: 38 Date Filed: 04/05/2012





The Court erred further in holding safe port and berth warranties are not

guarantees, but promises to exercise a common law standard of care, and in

applying the “named port exception” becaus