## Facts

- An allision/collision occurred on the Mississippi River near the Luling Bridge involving Marine Transport’s upbound tug M/V MARINE GUARDIAN towing barge MBC–2 and the downbound tug M/V TAKO INVADER.
- MARINE GUARDIAN overtook another upbound tug, M/V CREOLE RIVERS, on CREOLE RIVERS’ starboard side, moving toward the east bank.
- MARINE GUARDIAN overheard CREOLE RIVERS and TAKO INVADER agree by radio to a port-to-port passage.
- MARINE GUARDIAN’s captain assumed that agreement left room for MARINE GUARDIAN to continue overtaking near the east bank.
- TAKO INVADER remained on, or moved into, the east side of the river and collided with MARINE GUARDIAN and/or its tow.
- The barge sustained damage; Marine Transport sought repair costs and detention (lost-profit) damages for the barge’s downtime.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in its methodology and calculation of detention (lost-profit) damages for the barge’s time out of service.
2. Whether the district court made legally sufficient findings to apply Inland Navigational Rules 9 (narrow channels) and 14 (head-on situations) and to apportion fault 75% to TAKO INVADER and 25% to MARINE GUARDIAN.

## Decision

- Affirmed the district court’s use of a traditional earning-capacity approach to detention damages as sufficiently certain under admiralty standards.
- Vacated the detention-damages award amount to correct a mathematical error and remanded for recalculation consistent with the affirmed methodology.
- Vacated the apportionment of fault and remanded because the findings were insufficient to support application of Rule 9 and the conclusion that TAKO INVADER’s position “conclusively” established a Rule 14 violation.
- Directed the district court on remand to make explicit findings on whether the Luling Bridge reach is a “narrow channel,” reassess Rule 9 and Rule 14 compliance, and then re-apportion comparative fault as warranted.

## Legal Principles

- Detention damages in admiralty may be awarded for lost profits during a vessel’s repair period using earning capacity and reasonable repair time; proof must provide reasonable certainty, not mathematical perfection.
- Appellate review of detention-damages fact findings is deferential; correction is appropriate for clear arithmetic errors.
- Inland Rule 9’s downbound preference in a narrow channel is conditional and does not eliminate duties under other collision-avoidance rules.
- A court must make explicit factual findings that a waterway is a “narrow channel” before applying Rule 9.
- A vessel’s presence on one side of the river does not, by itself, conclusively establish a Rule 14 violation; proper application depends on findings about the encounter, the passing arrangement, and whether a head-on or nearly head-on situation existed.
- Comparative fault in admiralty requires allocating responsibility according to the relative degree of causative fault; when predicate legal and factual findings are inadequate, fault allocation must be reconsidered.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s profit-based method for detention damages but required correction of a mathematical mistake, and it vacated the comparative-fault allocation because the record lacked necessary findings to support applying Inland Rules 9 and 14 to the river reach and the vessels’ meeting situation, requiring remand for further findings and re-apportionment.


Marine Transport Lines, Inc. v. M/V Tako Invader, 37 F.3d 1138 (5th Cir. 1994)