## Facts

- Brotherhood Shipping Co. owned the freighter M/V *Capetan Yiannis*, which was ordered to the Port of Milwaukee in December 1987 to load cargo.
- The vessel was assigned to one of two slips located opposite a gap in a breakwater; severe northeast storms had repeatedly caused damaging surging there over roughly a decade, including an incident where a ship sank.
- The City of Milwaukee owned and operated the port and was aware of the danger but primarily addressed it through a warning in a mariners’ manual.
- On the day of the incident, the harbormaster received a Coast Guard storm warning around 3:00 p.m., prepared a written notice, but did not deliver it until about 5:30 p.m.
- After receiving the notice, the captain requested a pilot to move to a safer berth, but the pilot had left for the day; the port did not keep pilots available around the clock.
- Tugs or lines to assist were not promptly available; when a pilot returned around 11:30 p.m., conditions were too severe to move the ship safely.
- The ship suffered approximately $4.5–$5 million in storm-related damage and was temporarily out of service.
- Brotherhood sued the City and its insurer (joined under a direct-action statute) alleging the City’s negligence contributed to the loss; the City counterclaimed for damage to the slip.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the summary-judgment record in the shipowner’s favor, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude the City was negligent in warning, assisting, or otherwise addressing known dangerous berth conditions.
2. Whether the summary-judgment standard is relaxed in an admiralty case because the ultimate fact-finder at trial is a judge rather than a jury.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to the City and its insurer and remanded.
- The court held the record could support a finding that the City was at least slightly negligent, making summary judgment improper.
- The court rejected the argument that admiralty bench-trial posture permits greater fact-finding latitude on summary judgment.
- The court declined to resolve comparative fault on summary judgment where evidence could support negligence by more than one actor.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence may be found where a port authority, aware of recurrent dangerous conditions and significant potential losses, fails to take reasonably burdensome precautions, including timely warnings and operational readiness (a balancing approach consistent with the Hand formula).
- In admiralty as in other civil cases, Rule 56 requires viewing evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant; a judge cannot weigh competing evidence or resolve genuine disputes of material fact on summary judgment merely because the case will be tried to the court.
- Evidence of possible negligence by the vessel’s personnel does not negate potential negligence by the port; comparative fault typically presents fact questions unsuitable for summary judgment when negligence by the defendant remains triable.

## Conclusion

Because the City knew of recurring storm-driven hazards in the assigned slips and the record supported inferences of unreasonable delay in warning and inadequate pilot/assistance availability, a reasonable fact-finder could find municipal negligence; the district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Brotherhood Shipping Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 985 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1993)