## Facts

- Westinghouse Electric Corp. shipped large electric rotors on the SS LESLIE LYKES, owned and operated by Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.
- A fire occurred in the No. 3 hold’s lower tween deck, where cotton and drill pipe were stowed near Westinghouse’s cargo.
- Access to a manhole used to reach the lower hold through the lower tween deck was blocked by stowed cargo (including bags of flour).
- Cargo interests alleged a broken turnbuckle in securing gear allowed drill pipe to shift and create friction or sparking, igniting nearby cotton, and argued that blocked access hindered inspection or tightening of the securing gear.
- Westinghouse sued for cargo damage; Lykes asserted statutory fire exemptions under the Fire Statute and COGSA.
- After a bench trial, the district court denied exoneration, attributing the blocked-manhole stowage to Lykes’s management level and treating the condition as unseaworthiness reflecting lack of due diligence, but it ruled that the master’s firefighting decisions were not attributable to the owner.
- Lykes appealed the liability ruling; Westinghouse cross-appealed on attribution of the master’s firefighting decisions.

## Issues

1. Under the Fire Statute and COGSA, who bears the burden to prove that a fire was caused by the shipowner’s “design or neglect,” and what role does unseaworthiness play in that burden?
2. Whether stowage blocking manhole access, allegedly contributing to ignition, was sufficiently tied to owner- or management-level “design or neglect” to defeat the fire exemption.
3. Whether alleged negligence by the master in firefighting is attributable to the owner as “design or neglect” under the Fire Statute.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for cargo and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with exoneration under the Fire Statute.
- The court held the district court misallocated the burden of proof; cargo bore the burden to show the fire resulted from the owner’s “design or neglect.”
- The court found insufficient evidence that any owner- or management-level conduct caused the fire, and rejected treating the blocked-manhole condition as shifting the burden to the carrier.
- The court rejected cargo’s cross-appeal, holding the master’s firefighting decisions were not attributable to the owner under the Fire Statute.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Fire Statute, a carrier is exempt from liability for fire damage unless cargo proves the fire was caused by the shipowner’s “design or neglect” (owner- or management-level fault).
- COGSA’s fire exception operates consistently with the Fire Statute; the statutory inquiry focuses on owner-level causative fault, not mere proof of unseaworthiness.
- An unseaworthy condition does not, by itself, shift the burden to the carrier to prove due diligence in order to obtain the fire exemption.
- Negligence by crew or non-managerial personnel, without proof of owner- or management-level causation, does not defeat the Fire Statute defense.
- Operational firefighting decisions by the master are generally treated as shipboard acts, not owner-level “design or neglect,” for Fire Statute purposes.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that cargo interests must prove a shipboard fire was caused by the shipowner’s “design or neglect” to defeat the statutory fire exemption, and that neither alleged unseaworthiness from blocked access nor the master’s firefighting decisions, absent owner-level causative fault, imposed liability on the carrier.


Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. M/V Leslie Lykes, 734 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1984)