## Facts

- Canal Barge Co., Inc. operated the towboat ELAINE JONES pushing a tow of barges southbound on the Mississippi River near a point-and-bend reach.
- China Ocean Shipping Co. operated the HUATONGHAI, an ocean-going vessel proceeding northbound in the same reach.
- Pilots recognized a local “point-bend” traffic practice: upbound vessels commonly favored the point side and downbound vessels the bend side, though vessels could depart from the practice by agreement.
- After completing a meeting with another tow, HUATONGHAI sought a starboard-to-starboard passing with ELAINE JONES; ELAINE JONES agreed by radio.
- The agreement required ELAINE JONES to move its tow into a stronger mid-river current on the point side, contrary to the usual downbound track.
- The vessels passed each other without contact, but immediately afterward ELAINE JONES could not maintain control of the tow in the strong current.
- Several barges allided with a wharf and two moored vessels, causing property damage.
- Damaged interests sought recovery; the principal dispute on appeal concerned liability between Canal Barge and COSCO.

## Issues

1. What role does the Mississippi River point-bend custom play in defining the standard of care for passing maneuvers, and can compliance with custom alone preclude negligence?
2. After vessels agree by radio to a noncustomary passing arrangement, what continuing duties of safe navigation and risk assessment remain for each vessel?
3. Whether the district court’s apportionment of comparative fault (2/3 to HUATONGHAI and 1/3 to ELAINE JONES) was clearly erroneous.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment after a bench trial in admiralty.
- The court upheld findings that both vessels were negligent and that fault was properly allocated 2/3 to HUATONGHAI and 1/3 to ELAINE JONES.
- The court rejected the argument that point-bend custom, or a custom-consistent track position, automatically established due care or insulated HUATONGHAI from liability.
- The court held that an agreed starboard-to-starboard passing did not relieve either vessel of ordinary care or compliance with applicable navigation rules.

## Legal Principles

- Local navigational custom is relevant evidence of prudent seamanship but does not displace the Inland Navigation Rules or the general duty of reasonable care.
- A vessel cannot rely on “custom” to avoid liability where a maneuver creates a foreseeable and unreasonable risk under the conditions presented.
- An agreed passing arrangement is not an allocation of responsibility; each vessel retains an independent duty to reject, modify, or execute the arrangement only if it can be done safely.
- Comparative-fault allocations in admiralty collision/allision cases are fact-driven findings reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and will not be reweighed on appeal absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a comparative-fault judgment arising from an agreed, noncustomary starboard-to-starboard passing on the Mississippi River, holding that river custom does not override statutory navigation duties and that both vessels remained responsible for assessing and avoiding foreseeable hazards created by the maneuver.


Canal Barge Co. v. China Ocean Shipping Co., 770 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir. 1985)