Court Enters Judgment Against Decedent Sea Captain's Claims For His Death Pursuant To The Primary Duty Rule Where Court Found That Captain Was Operating Vessel In An Unsafe Manner.
NORTHERN QUEEN INC., an Alaska corporation, as owner and operator of the F/V LIN J, Official No. 538018, for exoneration from or limitation of liability, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KATHRYN KINNEAR, the Estate of Blake Kinnear, Claimant-Appellant.
No. 00-36093
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
298 F.3d 1090; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15775
June 13, 2002, Argued and Submitted, Seattle, Washington
August 7, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. D.C. No. CV-99-1113-MJP. Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding. In re N. Queen, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20142, 2001 A.M.C. 556 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Claimant estate of decedent sea captain appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, that entered judgment in favor of plaintiff vessel owner and operator limiting its liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 181 et seq., to the decedent's estate under the primary duty doctrine.
OVERVIEW: Decedent's estate sought recovery for his death in a shipping accident. The vessel was captained by the decedent, and capsized with the loss of all hands in icy waters off Alaska. At trial, the district court found it was more probable than not that the vessel was traveling too rapidly before the casualty to avoid excessive icing or to permit removal of the ice build-up, and that the presence of 62 crab pots on board prevented the situation involving bilge in the lazarette from being corrected. As captain of the vessel, the decedent assumed responsibility for operating the vessel safely. Since he was the one person on board who could have given orders that could have corrected that situation, his own failure to perform duties imposed on him by his employment precluded his recovery from the vessel owner under the primary duty rule.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
