AHL SHIPPING COMPANY v. THE PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Full title: AHL SHIPPING COMPANY v. THE PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Civil Action No. 99-3421 Section: E/1 (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2000)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 99-3421 Section: E/1

November 13, 2000

ORDER AND REASONS

MARCEL LIVADAIS, JR, J.

Plaintiff AHL Shipping Company ("AHL") has filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which is in the nature of a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(c), seeking review of the Court's ruling granting the motion of the defendant Panama Canal Commission ("PCC") for summary judgment and entering judgment dismissing AHL's complaint. Defendant PCC opposes the motion.

In the previous ruling, the Court held that, after considering the entirety of the record, there were no material issues of fact in dispute and the PCC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's negligence claim against it because the evidence did not support plaintiff's position that the PCC was negligent. plaintiff AHL contends that the PCC is negligent because it allowed the M/V DELTA WAVE, which had been anchored in the Atlantic Anchorage, to move to the Limon Bay Anchorage to obtain emergency supplies, food, and bunkers. While the PCC was aware that the ship was low on these items and for humanitarian reasons, allowed it to travel to the Limon Bay Anchorage to replenish these supplies, there is no evidence that the M/V DELTA WAVE experienced mechanical or power failure prior to this specific mission, or that it would be a hazard to navigation in making this short voyage. There is similarly no evidence in the record that the PCC either knew or should have known that it would lose steering abilities during this short voyage.¹

1 The accident giving rise to this cause of action occurred on January 30, 1999, when the N/V DELTA WAVE was traveling from the Atlantic Outer Anchorage of the Panama canal to the Limon Bay Anchorage in order to obtain bunkers and supplies. Prior to the boarding of a Panama canal pilot, the M/V DELTA WAVE lost her steering capability, was unable to drop anchor immediately because her master had difficulty communicating with the crew, and it allided with the S/S NEW RIVER, which was owned by the plaintiff, AHL.

Plaintiff AHL premises its reconsideration motion on certain language in the initial decision that "waters beyond the Atlantic breakwater are not considered adjacent to the Panama Canal and the captain of the vessel is responsible for the actions of the vessel when no pilot is aboard" and the conclusion that "the allision and resulting damage did not occur in the Panama Canal or waters adjacent thereto" which it contends is clearly incorrect in light of information contained in the Port Entry Coordinator's Handbook for the Panama Canal. Because there is support for AHL's position regarding what is considered waters adjacent to the Panama Canal, the language indicating that the allision did not take place in waters adjacent to the Panama Canal should be deleted.

Similarly, AHL assumes that the ruling was premised upon a determination that if the vessels were in the Panama Canal or in waters adjacent thereto, the vessels would have been required to have a pilot on board, and if no pilot were on board, there can be no responsibility of the PCC. This Court did not so hold. The Court did hold that in the particular circumstances of this case, the PCC was not responsible for the allision in question as it was caused by a loss of steering capabilities of M/V DELTA WAVE. No PCC pilot was aboard, but as previously noted, even if a POC pilot had been aboard, there is no evidence that the PCC was negligent here and that its negligence caused the accident. The cause of the allision in question was a sudden rudder failure, an event which could not reasonably be foreseen by the PCC as there had been no indications that the M/V DELTA WAVE had lost, or would lose, steering capabilities prior to the PCC allowing it to move its position to replenish certain necessaries for the crew. The PCC cannot be held liable for circumstances beyond its control resulting in a collision even while the vessel is being navigated by a Panama Canal pilot, such as the failure of the vessel's steering mechanism and the failure of vessel's personnel to execute promptly the orders of the pilot, when there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the PCC pilot. See, Andros Shipping Co. v. Panama Canal Co., 298 F.2d 720, 727 (5^th Cir. 1962) and Seafarer S.A. v. Panama Canal Co., 168 F. Supp. 427, 431 (D.C. Canal Zone 1955)

In the present case, there was no Panama Canal pilot on board the vessel, so the accident could not have been caused by a steering or navigation error on the pilot's part. This is not to say that because there was no Panama Canal pilot on board the vessel, there would never be a basis for finding the PCC negligent. The foundation of the plaintiff's case here, however, is that the accident was caused, at least in part, by the negligence of the PCC in allowing the M/V DELTA WAVE to move from its position in the Atlantic Outer Anchorage to the Limon Bay Anchorage, to obtain bunkers and supplies. The PCC knew that the vessel needed to replenish these items and that the crew was desperate to obtain these items, but it had no knowledge that the M/V DELTA WAVE would lose its steering capabilities and become a hazard to navigation during this short trip. Under the facts of this case, the Court finds no sufficient evidentiary foundation upon which the PCC could be found negligent.

Thus, while the Court agrees that the statement about the legal import of the location of the accident may have been incorrect, the basic substance of the ruling remains as previously entered. Rather than hold that the statement actually was' incorrect, the Court will delete it as it was unnecessary to reach that issue since the Court found that, in any event, the record contained no evidence to support a finding that the PCC was negligent and caused the plaintiff's damages.

Accordingly, for the above and foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the plaintiff AHL Shipping Company for reconsideration be and is hereby GRANTED IN PART to delete the statement that the "allision and resulting damage did not occur in the Panama Canal or waters adjacent thereto," as well as any related statements indicating that the accident did not occur within the waters adjacent to the Panama Canal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the plaintiff AHL Shipping Company for reconsideration be and is hereby DENIED in all other respects, and that the judgment remains as previously entered.