## Facts

- The tug M/V Neptune and barge KRS 160-6 were chartered to transport a landing craft from Washington to American Samoa.
- In January 1995, the Neptune encountered a severe storm, took refuge in Crescent City harbor, became disabled, and grounded; the barge was secured alongside.
- Storm conditions in the harbor included extreme winds and substantial swells, creating a risk that the barge would collide with and damage the tug.
- Local fishermen, including David Evanow, Phillip Albee, and Raymond Dunham, offered assistance using their fishing vessels.
- The parties reached an agreement for salvage services at an hourly rate.
- Evanow’s vessel (the FRANK & MARIA) and another vessel attempted to tow the barge but could not due to the conditions.
- The FRANK & MARIA anchored and rigged lines to the barge to stabilize the vessels and prevent collisions, maintaining this arrangement for about 59 hours while standing watch and tending lines.
- A larger tug eventually arrived and towed the Neptune and barge to safety.
- Defendants refused to pay, arguing plaintiffs did not complete the rescue and acted negligently; plaintiffs sued in admiralty for compensation.
- After an eight-day bench trial before a magistrate judge, plaintiffs won on liability and damages; costs were awarded. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed on offsets, costs, and sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties formed an enforceable salvage contract for hourly compensation.
2. Whether compensation required plaintiffs to complete the final tow to safety rather than merely contributing to the successful rescue.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ conduct during the storm was negligent so as to bar or reduce recovery.
4. Whether challenged evidentiary rulings warranted reversal.
5. Whether the cost award and damages offset were legally and procedurally proper.
6. Whether defendants’ appeal warranted sanctions as frivolous.

## Decision

- Affirmed judgment awarding plaintiffs compensation under an hourly salvage-services contract.
- Held plaintiffs could recover even though another tug completed the final tow, because plaintiffs’ efforts materially contributed to preserving the vessels.
- Affirmed the finding that plaintiffs were not negligent in a manner that barred or materially reduced recovery.
- Found no reversible evidentiary error.
- Reversed and remanded the award of costs for recalculation under the proper statutory framework, while affirming the allowance of specified categories of costs.
- Denied plaintiffs’ request for appellate sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- A salvage contract is enforceable if it is not unconscionable or inequitable and the salvor provides substantial, beneficial services.
- Salvage compensation does not require that the salvor accomplish the final tow; it is enough that the salvor’s efforts materially contribute to the eventual preservation of the property.
- In a bench-tried admiralty case, factual findings (including negligence and causation) are reviewed for clear error; evidentiary rulings and most cost determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversal requires prejudice.
- Taxable costs are limited to statutory categories; deposition-related costs may be taxed when reasonably necessary for trial.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld an hourly salvage-services contract and allowed recovery where fishermen stabilized a disabled tug and barge through a severe storm, materially aiding the eventual rescue despite not completing the final tow, but required reconsideration of the cost award under the governing cost statutes.


Evanow v. M/V Neptune, 163 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 1998)