[Psml] A Federal appeals case involving damage from a wake

[AlLakin at aol.com]

Friends:
 
Most of the discussion has centered on law enforcement --- getting a  
citation for excessive speed in a no-wake zone.  Just for fun, I fired up  Findlaw 
(_www.findlaw.com_ (http://www.findlaw.com) ) and looked  for civil cases in the 
Federal district courts alleging that negligent operation  --- excessive wake 
--- was the cause of the plaintiff's loss.
 
I found In re: Cleveland Tankers, Inc., a 1990 accident involving  a tanker 
unloading fuel in Bay City, MI.  Another large ship passing close  to the stern 
of the tanker.  A four foot surge caused the tanker to lunge  forward.  The 
force of the movement sheared off the piling, leaving the  stern of the tanker 
free to swing.  The unloading hose and the  shore power cable snapped.   This 
started a gasoline fire on  the deck, which spread through vents into the 
entire tanker.  There were  several injuries and one death.  The tanker was 
destroyed and the pier was  severely damaged.
 
The district court found negligence by both the passing vessel  and the owner 
of the tanker and pier---

the passing vessel: by leaving the wake in a no-wake zone,  relying on 33 
C.F.R. § 164.11:
"The owner, master, or person in charge of each vessel underway shall  ensure 
that: . . . 
(p) The person directing the movement of the vessel sets the vessel's  speed 
with consideration for: 
(2) The proximity of the vessel to fixed shore and marine structures;  ...
(6) The damage that might be caused by the vessel's wake
(8) Any local vessel speed limit"
 
the tanker by having inadequately screened vents (think  "flame arrestors") 
that allowed the fire to reach the cargo
 
the pier owner in failing to find and correct dry rot in the  piling.

The district court's mention of local speed limits ought to put to  rest the 
question about Federal supremacy -- the CFR adopts local speed  regulations, 
so they get Federal application as needed.
 
Al Lakin
Valley Ho   D/13



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.usps.org/pipermail/psml/attachments/20071014/a85988f3/attachment-0001.html