## Facts

- Knappton Corporation owned a tug and a log raft that was towed into Oregon’s Multnomah Channel and moored to pilings near the shore.
- The raft was initially secured at both ends, but one securing line later came untied, allowing one end of the raft to drift into the navigable channel.
- During a bass fishing tournament, Clayton Hood and Gregory Turman each collided with the drifting raft while operating motorized fishing boats.
- Hood and Turman sued Knappton in federal court for negligence; both sought property damages, and Turman also sought personal injury damages.
- After a bench trial, the district court applied the maritime “Louisiana rule,” placing on Knappton the burden to show it was not negligent in allowing the raft to become unmoored.
- The district court found Knappton negligent and also found Hood and Turman each 25% comparatively at fault for failing to maintain a reasonable lookout; it awarded each plaintiff 75% of proven damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly applied the maritime “Louisiana rule” to shift the burden of proof to the owner of a drifting, unmoored object, notwithstanding the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in allocating fault at 75% to Knappton and 25% to each plaintiff for failure to keep a proper lookout.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the Louisiana rule is a substantive rule of maritime law allocating responsibility for collisions involving drifting vessels or floating objects, and it was properly applied to shift the burden to Knappton.
- The court held the comparative fault apportionment was not clearly erroneous and therefore would not be disturbed on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- In admiralty collision cases, when a vessel or floating object breaks free and drifts into the channel, maritime law applies a presumption of fault against the owner; the owner bears the burden to show freedom from negligence.
- The Louisiana rule functions as a substantive maritime allocation-of-fault doctrine serving safety objectives and is not displaced by the Federal Rules of Evidence governing evidentiary presumptions.
- Apportionment of comparative fault in admiralty is reviewed for clear error; an appellate court affirms unless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s application of the Louisiana rule to presume Knappton’s negligence for the drifting log raft and affirmed the 75/25 comparative fault allocation because the findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.


Hood v. Knappton Corp., 986 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1993)