ALLSEAS MARITIME, S.A., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
M/V MIMOSA, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS; JUNIPER SHIPPING LTD., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CROSS-APPELLEE, V. VIZIER OFFSHORE TOWING, TOMMIE VIZIER, RUSSELL DUET, JOSEPH BASALDU, LLOYD DUET AND RONALD PAUL TAYLOR, CLAIMANTS-APPELLEES CROSS-APPELLANTS; CROWNCEN INTERNATIONAL, N.V., PLAINTIFF, V. ALLSEAS MARITIME, S.A., ET AL., DEFENDANTS; JUNIPER SHIPPING, LTD., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE, V. VIZIER OFFSHORE TOWING, ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS; ALLSEAS MARITIME, S.A., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, V. STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS; JUNIPER SHIPPING, LTD., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE, V. VIZIER OFFSHORE TOWING, ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS; IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF JUNIPER SHIPPING, LTD., ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE, V. VIZIER OFFSHORE TOWING, ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS

5th Cir. | 1987-06-25
No. 86-2093
Before GOLDBERG, RUBIN, and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.
820 F.2d 129 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

In the earlier proceeding in this case of maritime salvage,1 the M/V TAROZE VIZIER sought additional recovery on the basis that it saved the owner of the M/V MIMOSA from liability to third parties. We denied an allowance based on this theory because the owner could limit its liability to the value of the MIMOSA and the salvage award had already accounted for the saving of that value.2 While the TAROZE VIZIER challenged the owner’s ability to limit liability, we found no evidence in the record of negligence by the MIMOSA that would prevent it from limiting liability.3 The TAROZE VIZIER'now calls our attention to a report by the Republic of Liberia’s Marine Board of Investigation, entered as an exhibit at trial, which concludes that the MIMOSA’s crew acted negligently.

While we recognize that, once the TAR-OZE VIZIER proves negligence, the owner of the MIMOSA must demonstrate lack of privity or knowledge in order to limit liability,4 the issue of the MIMOSA’s negligence was not pressed below and was therefore not adequately developed. We cannot try the issue on appeal.

For the reasons above, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

. Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V MIMOSA, 812 F. 2d 243 (5th Cir.1987).

. Id. at 247.

. Id. at 248.

. Id.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ocean Servs. Towing & Salvage, Inc. v. Brown, 810 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1993)
    …ipt for the pollution containment skirt. See Ex. 6. 11. The salved value generally serves as a ceiling for the maximum allowable total award. See Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 820 F.2d 129 (1987); Platoro, 695 F.2d at 904. We need not address whether there exists an exception to this principle where the salvage operation averted the owner’s potential exposure to liability for environmental damage, since the testimony at trial fa…
  • Atlantis Marine Towing, Inc. v. the M/V Elizabeth, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
    …roughly 1.22 million dollars. 7 “The salved value generally serves as a ceiling for the maximum allowable total award.” Id. at 1264 (citing Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir.1987) reh’g denied, 820 F.2d 129 (5th Cir.1987); Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. Unidentified Remains of a Vessel, Her Cargo, Apparel, Tackle, and Furniture, in a Cause of Salvage, Civil and Maritime, 695 F.2d 893, 904 (5th Cir.1983)). Yet, generally, “the award will never be for more…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw