JURISPRUDENCIA Volver >
Court of Appeals Orders “Do-Over” in ATHOS I Case
Citar: elDial.com - CC3530
Copyright 2024 - elDial.com - editorial albrematica - Tucumán 1440 (1050) - Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires - Argentina
Texto Completo
Court of Appeals Orders “Do-Over” in ATHOS I Case(*) |
In
April 2011, District Judge Fullam in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania found that the Owner and Manager (hereinafter
collectively “Frescati”) of the oil tanker M/T ATHOS I
were unable to sustain their contractual and tort claims
against the voyage charterers of the Vessel (hereinafter
“CARCO”) for damages arising out of a 2004 oil spill in
the Delaware River. In a fifty-eight (58) page decision
issued Thursday morning, May 16, 2013, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals vacated the majority of Judge Fullam’s
decision, remanding the case (in part) for additional
factfinding on Frescati’s contractual (and possibly
negligence) claims. Frescati’s
claims against CARCO arose from the M/T ATHOS I’s allision
with an abandoned ship anchor, hidden on the bottom of the
Delaware River merely nine hundred (900) feet from the
Vessel’s berth. The abandoned anchor punctured the
ship’s hull and caused approximately On
appeal, the Third Circuit first noted that the District
Court’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 52(a)(1), which requires a trial court to make
separate findings of fact and conclusions of law following a
bench trial, required a remand of the matter.
Notwithstanding this finding, the Court nonetheless addressed
the legal issues appealed by Frescati and the United States. Finally,
the Court considered a limited settlement agreement that
CARCO had reached with the United States, whereby CARCO
agreed not to raise any equitable defense premised on the
government’s regulation of the Anchorage and failure to
detect, mark and/or remove underwater obstructions to
navigation (such as the abandoned anchor) in the Delaware
River. The government argued that CARCO should be
precluded on remand from raising these issues.
Notwithstanding this limited settlement agreement and the
promises made by each party thereto, the Third Circuit
accepted CARCO’s arguments that by failing to address these
issues at trial, the government waived the issue.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit declined to
preclude CARCO from raising an equitable defense to the
government’s subrogation claims on remand. In
short, the Third Circuit’s Opinion essentially orders a
“do-over” of the case before the District Court, for
further factual findings as to whether CARCO breached the
contractual safe port/safe berth warranties owed to the ATHOS
I and to Frescati. To the extent that analysis of
Frescati’s negligence claim is necessary (i.e. –
if, on remand, the District Court finds no breach of
CARCO’s contractual warranties), the District Court will
need to determine the appropriate standard of care, whether
it was breached, and, if so, did that breach proximately
cause the oil spill. On remand, the matter will be
considered by District Judge Joel H. Slomsky, who was
assigned to the case following Judge Fullam’s retirement.
(*)
To
read a copy of the Third Circuit’s decision, click
here. This
article was prepared by CHALOS & CO, P.C. –
INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM and is reprinted herein with
permission. For more information from the authors, please
contact: info@chaloslaw.com For more information about the Court’s decision and how it may apply to specific facts and circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@chaloslaw.com.
|
Citar: elDial.com - CC3530
Copyright 2024 - elDial.com - editorial albrematica - Tucumán 1440 (1050) - Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires - Argentina
¿PROBASTE NUESTROS SERVICIOS?
Formá parte de elDial.com y obtené acceso a novedades jurídicas, nuevos fallos y sentencias, miles de modelos de escritos, doctrinas y legislación actualizada. Además, con tu suscripción accedes a muchos beneficios y descuentos en las mejores editoriales, libros y cursos.