421 U.S. 397, 95 S. Ct. 1708, 44 L.Ed.2d 251, 1975 AMC 541 (1975), on remand 522 F.2d 1381, 1975 AMC 1508 (2nd Cir. 1975)
On a clear but windy December night in 1968, the Mary A. Whalen, a coastal tanker owned by the respondent Reliable Transfer Co., embarked from Constable Hook, N. J., for Island Park, N. Y., with a load of fuel oil.1 The voyage ended, instead, with the vessel stranded on a sand bar off Rockaway Point outside New York Harbor.2 The Whalen’s course led across the mouth of Rockaway Inlet, a narrow body of water that lies between a breakwater to the southeast and the shoreline of Coney Island to the northwest.3
The breakwater is ordinarily marked at its southernmost point by a flashing light maintained by the Coast Guard.4 As the Whalen’s captain and a deckhand observed while the vessel was proceeding southwardly across the inlet, the light was not operating that night.5 As the Whalen approached Rockaway Point about half an hour later, her captain attempted to pass a tug with a barge in tow ahead, but, after determining that he could not overtake them, decided to make a 180° turn to pass astern of the barge.6 At this time the tide was at flood, and the waves, whipped by northwest winds of gale force, were eight to ten feet high.7
After making the 180° turn and passing astern of the barge, the captain headed the Whalen eastwardly, believing that the vessel was then south of the breakwater and that he was heading her for the open sea.8 About a minute later the light structure on the southern point of the breakwater came into view.9 Turning to avoid rocks visible ahead, the Whalen ran aground in the sand.10
The respondent brought this action against the United States in Federal District Court, under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, 46 U. S. C. § 741 et seq., and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 et seq., seeking to recover for damages to the Whalen caused by the stranding.11 The District Court found that the vessel’s grounding was caused 25% by the failure of the Coast Guard to maintain the breakwater light and 75% by the fault of the Whalen.12 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this judgment.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the continued validity of the divided damages rule.14
Whether the admiralty rule of divided damages should be replaced by a rule requiring, when possible, the allocation of liability for damages in proportion to the relative fault of each party?15
When two or more parties have contributed by their fault to cause property damage in a maritime collision or stranding, liability for such damage is to be allocated among the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault.16 Liability for such damages is to be allocated equally only when the parties are equally at fault or when it is not possible fairly to measure the comparative degree of their fault.17
Yes. The District Court found that the vessel’s grounding was caused 25% by the failure of the Coast Guard to maintain the breakwater light and 75% by the fault of the Whalen. This finding represents an allocation of disparate proportional fault that can reasonably be made on the facts.18 Under the new rule the liability must therefore be allocated in those proportions rather than divided equally.19 The equal-division rule applies only when the parties are equally at fault or when comparative degrees of fault cannot be measured.20
The facts establish that the Coast Guard’s omission and the vessel’s navigational errors both contributed to the stranding, yet the District Court’s percentage findings permit a rational apportionment that the prior rule would have ignored in favor of a 50-50 split.21
The divided damages rule is replaced by the rule allocating liability according to comparative fault whenever possible, and the judgment is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that rule.22