A Maritime, Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog

Author Archive

The Plaintiff, a soldier in the U.S. Army, was injured in a recreational boating accident after he and several other servicemen rented a pontoon boat at a reservoir maintained by the Army.  The men had been drinking all day and the plaintiff fell overboard when he stood up as the boat decelerated.  The plaintiff sued his friend who was piloting the boat, as well as the manufacturer of the rental boat.  The boat manufacturer filed a third party complaint against the U.S. Army, alleging among other things, negligence in failing to warn the boaters of several dangers associated with the boat.  The Army filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the District Court, as the manufacturer failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any negligence by the Army caused or contributed to the injuries.  The manufacturer then appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fifth Circuit noted that the negligence claims were brought under federal maritime law and therefore the manufacturer must prove that breach of a duty was the “legal cause” of injury and not merely a “but-for” cause.  The court examined the manufacturer’s claims of negligence for failure to verbally review a safety checklist, which included such prohibitions as drinking alcohol while operating the boat and standing while the engine was running.  In this case, the soldier piloting the boat had rented another boat just two weeks prior to the incident.  Because the rental agent recognized the man, he did not feel the need to re-read the safety checklist and instead required the soldier to initial it.

The Court found that even though the pilot was consuming alcohol and other safety rules were broken, his actions demonstrated that he was at least aware of the provisions on the safety checklist.  The Army’s failure to verbally read the safety checklist therefore may have been a factor contributing to injury, but it did not rise to the level of “legal causation” of the plaintiff’s injury.  The court affirmed the summary judgment and the Army was dismissed as a third party defendant.

Regan v. Stafcraft Marine, LLC, No. 10-30619 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011) (unpublished).

Note: This is not the first time the Fifth Circuit addressed this case.  The court issued a published decision in 2008 where it addressed the Feres, “which bars tort suits against the United States by or on behalf of service members whose injuries arise out of activity incident to their military service.”  Regan v. Starcraft Marine, LLC, 524 F.3d 627, 630 (5th Cir. 2008).