## Facts

- Mapco Petroleum, Inc. owned and operated petroleum dock facilities on the Mississippi River near Memphis, Tennessee.
- On December 7, 1986, Memphis Barge Line, Inc.’s vessel M/V Sebring was pushing a three-barge tow toward Mapco’s dock to moor for the night.
- A towed barge struck and damaged Mapco’s dock, and Mapco alleged the damage resulted from Memphis Barge’s negligence.
- Mapco sued Memphis Barge in Tennessee state court for tort damages.
- Memphis Barge pled an affirmative defense under the Limitation of Vessel Owner’s Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 183, seeking to limit liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight (asserted as $353,515.58).
- The trial court struck the limitation defense for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- After the defense was stricken, the parties stipulated to $690,000 in damages (exclusive of prejudgment interest), and the trial court entered judgment totaling $905,915.02 with prejudgment interest.
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding state courts lack jurisdiction to decide a contested limitation defense.
- No federal limitation proceeding under 46 U.S.C. app. § 185 was filed.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee state courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate an affirmative defense under 46 U.S.C. app. § 183 when no federal limitation proceeding under 46 U.S.C. app. § 185 has been commenced.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed.
- The court held Tennessee state courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a vessel owner’s § 183 limitation defense when no § 185 federal limitation proceeding is pending.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including adjudication of Memphis Barge’s limitation-of-liability defense.

## Legal Principles

- Under the saving-to-suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, maritime claimants may pursue in personam damages actions in state court, and state courts may apply federal maritime substantive law while providing common-law remedies.
- Section 183 provides a substantive limitation right (limitation to vessel value and pending freight absent the owner’s “privity or knowledge”) that may be raised as an affirmative defense in a state-court damages action.
- Section 185 creates a special federal procedure (a concursus proceeding with the potential to enjoin other suits), but does not require a vessel owner to invoke that procedure to assert limitation.
- Exclusive federal control attaches to the § 185 concursus mechanism when invoked, not to the abstract question of limitation under § 183 in a state-court tort action with no federal limitation petition.
- State courts of general jurisdiction are presumed competent to decide federal rights unless Congress clearly makes federal jurisdiction exclusive.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that, absent a federal § 185 limitation proceeding, a Tennessee state court may hear and decide a vessel owner’s § 183 limitation-of-liability defense within an in personam maritime damages action, and it reinstated the defense for adjudication on remand.


Mapco Petroleum, Inc. v. Memphis Barge Line, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 312 (Tenn. 1993)