GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
FINAL EXAMINATION IN ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW
SPRING SEMESTER, 2001
1. This is an open book exam. You may refer to any materials you wish.
2. Total time for the examination is three hours.
3. The exam consists of two hypotheticals, each of which have five questions to be answered in essay form.
4. I recommend that you spend 90 minutes on each hypothetical divided up among the five questions.
5. Each of the ten questions is worth ten points, for a total of 100 points for the entire exam.
6. If the facts of either hypothetical question are unclear, state the ambiguity and proceed to answer the question based upon that understanding. Your grade will be primarily based on legal reasoning utilizing the principles of admiralty law that we have covered in the class.
7. Answer questions in blue books; please write on every other line, on only one side of the page.
8. Be sure to write your exam number on your blue books and on the exam question.
9. Turn in all questions, scratch paper and blue books at the conclusion of the exam.
Question No. 1
Frankly Rich, a Sacramento area real estate broker, owned a 70 foot motor yacht,
the MN GOOD TIMES, which he purchased for one million dollars in the previous year.
On July 4`" 2000, Rich planned to entertain twenty real estate prospects, by inviting them
for a day of sailing, fishing and drinking on the Sacramento River, north of the City of
Sacramento. At that location, the river was deep enough to accommodate large
pleasure boats and river touring vessels, but not merchant vessels. He asked Brad
Oman, a sales associate in Rich's office, to help him with operating the boat, and
assisting the guests. Brad had some experience working as a deckhand on a fishing
boat when he had attended college 10 years before. It was agreed that he would
receive $250.00 for his day's work on the boat.
At around 3 P.M., the GOOD TIMES was at anchor on the River while the guests
were fishing or lying in the sun. Rich was sitting at the controls on vessel's flying bridge,
located outside and on top of the vessel's cabin. Rich was sipping beer and talking to
his guests, but was paying little attention to speed boats in the vicinity which were
passing by his boat at fast speeds. At about that time, a hook on one of the passenger's
fishing lines became caught on a platform (called a "transom") located on the stern, just
above the water level. Rich directed Brad Oman to climb down onto the transom and
free the fishing line. Brad, who could not swim, asked for a life vest and for a "gaff' (a
long pole) to help him reach the hook. Rich advised that there were no gaff or life vests
:board, and told Brad to "be careful." Brad proceeded to climb over the stern rail, let
himself down onto the transom, and attempted to reach under the transom to free the
fishing hook. Unfortunately, Brad's feet slipped out from under him on the slick, wet
transom, which did not have a non-skid surface. Brad fell head first into the Sacramento
River.
No one had observed Brad slip, but after a few minutes Kathy Slim walked over to
the stern and realized that Brad was not in sight. Kathy had been a member of her
college swimming team, and yelled out that she was diving into the river to attempt to
find and rescue Brad. Rich became very stressed and did not pay any attention to boats
in the immediate area. Kathy jumped into the water, and started swimming away from
the stern just as a large speed boat, VIGILANT, operated by Steve Fast, was
approaching the GOOD TIMES at an excessive speed. Fast was not looking at the
water in front of him, and was unaware of the presence of a swimmer. The VIGILANT
struck Kathy at full speed, and she immediately disappeared under the surface of the
River. After realizing to his horror that he had hit a swimmer, Fast lost control of his
boat, and collided with the after quarter of the GOOD TIMES. This collision tore a
gaping hole in the GOOD TIMES' fibreglass hull, and caused the VIGILANT to capsize
and sink. Fast, who was wearing a life vest, was helped on board the GOOD TIMES.
The GOOD TIMES began to take on water through the large hole in its hull below
the water line, and began to rapidly sink. A large cabin cruiser, MN SAMARITAN, had
observed the VIGILANT strike Kathy, the collision, and recognized that the GOOD
TIMES was in peril of sinking. The crew of the SAMARITAN first attempted to search for
Kathy in the immediate vicinity of the impact, while at the same time making emergency
calls to the Sheriff and Coast Guard. There was no sign of Kathy, and the SAMARITAN
crew realized that the GOOD TIMES was steadily sinking. The SAMARITAN proceeded
to sail alongside the GOOD TIMES and volunteered its assistance to Frankly Rich,
which was accepted. A line was secured to the bow of the foundering GOOD TIMES.
With considerable difficulty, and significant risk to the SAMARITAN, the GOOD TIMES
was towed to the nearest point on shore where it was grounded on a sand bank before it
completely sank.
After several hours, a sheriffs vessel, with a diver, brought up the bodies of Brad
and Kathy. The coroner's inquest later determined that Brad had drowned when he
became caught on some underwater debris; and that Kathy's death was due to trauma
to her skull caused by the impact of the VIGILANT. Kathy is survived by her parents,
who were not dependent on her, but had a close and loving relationship. Brad is
survived by his wife and one child, who were wholly dependent on the decedent.
Please answer the following questions in essay form:
1 . Is this a case of maritime jurisdiction in tort? Explain what test you applied in
reaching your conclusion.
2. What is the status of Brad Oman? Assuming that he is survived by a wife and child, what cause(s) of action do his survivors have, and against whom? Under what facts and legal theories? What is the nature of damages that are recoverable by his survivors?
3. What is the status of Kathy Slim? Assuming that she is survived by her parents, what cause(s) of action do her parents have, and against whom? Under what facts and legal theories? What is the nature of damages that are recoverable by her parents?
4. What are the respective liabilities of Rich and Fast for the collision between the GOOD TIMES and the VIGILANT? How would you analyze and apportion fault (if apportionment is applicable) for the collision? Does the Pennsylvania Rule apply and, if so, what is its effect?
5. Does the SAMARITAN have any maritime claim for towing the sinking GOOD TIMES to safety? What is the nature of the claim? What factors must be proven for recovery, and are they present in this case?
Question No. 2
On August 24, 2000, two large bulk carriers were moored at separate piers at the
port of Richmond, California, approximately one-half a mile apart. One vessel, the
HORIZON, was taking on a cargo of liquid coke for shipment to steel mills in Korea. The
HORIZON was berthed at the Diablo Coke Terminal, which was owned by the
Overpriced Refinery Corporation. The Terminal's pier was in need of considerable
maintenance and structural work. The other vessel, TWILIGHT, was berthed at the
Richmond Grain Terminal, and had completed the loading of a cargo of grain and was
scheduled to depart for Bangladesh at noon.
At 11:30 A.M., Captain John Hurry, a San Francisco Bay compulsory pilot,
boarded the TWILIGHT, proceeded to the bridge, and introduced himself to the Master
of the TWILIGHT. There was no exculpatory agreement between the TWILIGHT and
Captain Hurry. Shortly after the pilot's arrival, two assist tugs, PUSH and PULL, heaved
lines to the TWILIGHT. The lines were secured by the vessel's crew, and the tugs took
up their respective positions at the bow and after quarter of the TWILIGHT.
Before his arrival aboard the TWILIGHT, Captain Hurry had received information
from the San Francisco Bay Pilot's dispatcher that an ebb tide would be running at the
speed of 1 knot. After undocking, Captain Hurry ordered the TWILIGHT to proceed at
about one knot. Captain Hurry and the Master of the TWILIGHT were both aware that
the HORIZON was in the process of being loaded at the Diablo Coke Terminal and that
the Diablo pier was known to be in very poor condition.
With the ship's engine and the assistance of the PUSH and PULL, the TWILIGHT
was undocked and brought into the deep water channel. This channel ran parallel and
close to several Richmond piers, including the Diablo Coke Terminal. The TWILIGHT's
Master and Captain Hurry have testified that the HORIZON's lines were not sufficient or
tight enough to resist any foreseeable wake of a passing vessel. The HORIZON's
officers contend that they had received notice that the TWILIGHT was about to pass,
and increased the number of mooring lines and made them all sufficiently tight.
As the HORIZON started to sail along the ship channel, Captain Hurry realized
that the ebb tide was much stronger than he expected, and was running approximately 4
knots, rather than the predicted 1 knot. As a result, Captain Hurry was having
considerable difficulty maintaining steerage-way within the deep channel and was fearful
that the HORIZON would ground itself in shallow water (a vessel is said to have
"steerage-way" when it is moving fast enough for the rudder to be useful for steering).
He decided that it was necessary to increase the speed of the HORIZON to 4 or more
knots in order to maintain control of the rudder. Captain Hurry also had the option of
calling the tugs back (which had only traveled a very short distance) to assist the vessel
in maintaining its steerage-way without increasing its speed and risk of damage to other
moored vessels by the creation of a strong wake (the trail left in water by a passing
ship). The Master of the TWILIGHT, however, refused to authorize a further tug assist
because of the additional expense. Consequently, Captain Hurry requested that the
engine room increase the engine revolutions to bring the speed up to 4 knots.
When the TWILIGHT passed outboard of the HORIZON at a speed of 4 or more
knots, a strong wake was created by its speed and size. The surge and suction of the
HORIZON'S wake violently pulled the TWILIGHT'S bow away from the pier, ripping
away cleats and bollards from the pier, which held its forward mooring lines. In addition,
the ship's gangway was detached from its fittings and there was major structural
damage to the pier. Damage to the pier was estimated to be $3,000,000. The
HORIZON suffered $250,000 damage to its hull and gangway.
One hour later, a longshoreman, Steve Friendly, 25 years of age, employed by
Diablo Coke Terminal, arrived at the pier to join a longshore gang loading a vessel. As
Friendly walked towards the vessel's temporary gangway along a narrow catwalk, he
stepped on a normal appearing board on the catwalk decking which, suddenly and
without warning, seesawed. Friendly was flipped off the catwalk and into the Bay. As he
fell, his body struck several structural support beams and he was underwater for 15
seconds. He managed to swim to the surface in excruciating pain, and screamed for
help. After 20 minutes, a mate on the vessel heard his calls, and he was finally brought
to shore by Fire Department rescue personnel, and transported to the hospital by
ambulance. Friendly was diagnosed as having major spine injuries with resulting partial
paralysis, and was determined to be totally and permanently disabled. Friendly made a
claim of $5,000,000 in economic damages and past and future pain and suffering.
Please answer the following questions in essay form. With respect to questions 14, discuss the
factual and legal basis
of all potential causes of action which may be
brought by the party named in each question. Are there any defenses that any of the
responsible parties may allege against the potential defendants?
Question 5 relates to the application of limitation of liability to the facts of the
hypothetical.
1.
The HORIZON: What causes of action may be brought against the responsible
parties for damage to the vessel caused or contributed by the wake of the TWILIGHT?
Discuss the nature of the causes of action and the nature of any defenses that can be
asserted by the defendant(s).
2. Overpriced Refinery Corporation: Does the owner of the terminal pier have any causes of action against the responsible parties? If so, discuss the nature of the causes of action and the nature of any defenses that can be asserted by the defendant(s).
3. The TWILIGHT: Does the Twilight have any cause of action for indemnity against any other defendant? If so, discuss the nature of the cause(s) of action for indemnity.
4. Steve Friendly: Does Friendly have a cause of action for personal injuries in his capacity as a longshoreman? Discuss which defendants are subject to suit, and the legal basis of such a suit
5.
Limitation of Liability: Assume for purposes of this question that the claims against each
vessel exceed their respective value including pending freight. Discuss whether the Limitation of
Liability Act, 46 USC § 183 et. seq., is available for each vessel; the procedure to be followed
for invoking the limitation protection; and whether Limitation of Liability can be successfully
utilized by the vessels under the facts of this case.