## Facts

- Terra Resources operated a Louisiana oil-and-gas field and used Action Oil Field Services to supply laborers for field work.
- Armogene Braus owned aluminum crew boats that he rented on a verbal, day-rate basis; he kept the boats at his home and chartered them to different customers.
- Terra began using Braus’s services to transport Action workers to the field; Terra paid fuel, and the day rate varied depending on whether Braus operated the boat.
- Under the verbal arrangement, Braus retained responsibility for upkeep, maintenance, breakdowns, and insurance, and he generally operated the vessel, though Terra’s representative occasionally drove it.
- Braus invoiced Terra for “boat and operator” on a “time charter” invoice shortly before the accident.
- On January 5, 1988, while Braus was transporting four Action employees for Terra, the crew boat collided with Wade J. Trahan’s bass boat on an inland waterway; Trahan was speeding and died.
- After a bench trial, the district court allocated fault 80% to Trahan and 20% to Terra, holding Terra liable as a demise (bareboat) charterer of Braus’s vessel.
- Terra appealed, contesting the charter classification and resulting owner-type liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in classifying Terra’s arrangement with Braus as a demise (bareboat) charter rather than a time charter.
2. Whether, given the proper charter classification, Terra could be held liable in the capacity of a vessel owner (owner pro hac vice) for the collision.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that Terra was a demise (bareboat) charterer.
- The court held the arrangement was, at most, a time charter in which Braus retained possession, command, and navigation of the vessel.
- Because Terra was not an owner pro hac vice, the basis for imposing vessel-owner liability on Terra failed.

## Legal Principles

- A demise (bareboat) charter requires an owner’s complete transfer of possession, command, and navigation to the charterer; the charterer becomes owner pro hac vice.
- In a time charter, the owner retains control over operation and navigation, while the charterer primarily obtains transportation services and may direct destination and timing.
- Courts presume against finding a demise charter absent clear evidence that the owner surrendered full control.
- Appellate clear-error review does not insulate a district court’s application of legal standards to essentially undisputed facts; charter classification is reviewed as a mixed question of fact and law.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Terra’s verbal, day-rate crew-boat arrangement—where Braus provided “boat and operator” and retained responsibility for maintenance and insurance—did not constitute a demise charter, so Terra could not be treated as the vessel’s owner pro hac vice for collision liability.


Walker v. Braus, 995 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1993)