“Targeted Maritime Presumptions” – Case-by-Case Application of the Louisiana and Pennsylvania Rules after Gulf Island Shipyards v. LaShip (5th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

Hurricane Ida’s catastrophic landfall in August 2021 spawned a complex web of breakaways and collisions along the Houma Navigation Canal in Louisiana. The resulting litigation pitted Gulf Island Shipyards, L.L.C. (“Gulf Island”) against LaShip, L.L.C. (“LaShip”), Reel Pipe, L.L.C., and the M/V Betty Chouest. After a six-day bench trial, the district court apportioned 65 % fault to Gulf Island and 35 % to LaShip, awarding cross-judgments for damages to the various vessels. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed, but reversed on a discrete issue: liability for damage to Gulf Island’s vessel Salvo. In doing so, the court articulated a refined principle: maritime presumptions such as the Louisiana Rule and the Pennsylvania Rule may be “switched on” or “off” vessel-by-vessel depending on whether a factual vacuum persists for that particular allision/collision. This commentary unpacks the decision, its doctrinal roots, and its prospective ripple effects on admiralty jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

Fault allocation: 65 % Gulf Island, 35 % LaShip, based on extensive findings of mooring deficiencies on both sides.
Damages: District court awarded (a) $503,130.51 to Gulf Island for the Wild Horse, and (b) $860,201 to Reel Pipe for the Betty Chouest. It denied recovery for Gulf Island’s War Horse and Salvo.
Appellate disposition:
- Affirmed: denial of Act-of-God defense; rejection of global maritime presumptions; 65/35 fault split; damages valuations for Wild Horse and Betty Chouest; no recovery for War Horse.
- Reversed and remanded: denial of liability for the stationary Salvo. The Fifth Circuit held that, because the Salvo never moved and no eyewitness testimony covered its impact, the Louisiana and Pennsylvania presumptions governed that segment of the case, compelling a finding of liability against LaShip/Reel Pipe. Damages for the Salvo (claimed at $100,000) were remanded for determination.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel’s opinion weaves together a suite of foundational admiralty cases:

The Louisiana, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 164 (1865) – establishing the “Louisiana Rule” presumption of fault when a moving vessel allides with a stationary object.
The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 125 (1873) – shifting the burden to a regulatory violator to prove its fault could not have caused the casualty.
United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (1975) – replacing automatic 50/50 apportionment with comparative fault.
Combo Marine v. United Bulk Terminal, 615 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2010) – teaching that once “adequate evidence” dispels factual uncertainty, presumptions may become “superfluous.”
Bunge Corp. v. M/V Furness Bridge, 558 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1977) – confirming courts are permitted, but not obligated, to use presumptions even if evidence exists.
Luwisch v. American Marine Corp., 956 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2020) – emphasizing deference to trial-level credibility findings.

These authorities guided the panel to a pivotal nuance: evidence sufficient to dispel a presumption as to one vessel does not necessarily eliminate that presumption for another vessel arising out of the same meteorological event. Hence, the court declined to apply presumptions to the Wild Horse/Betty Chouest interaction (rich testimony and forensic analysis) but mandated them for the Salvo incident (evidentiary vacuum).

Legal Reasoning

Act-of-God defense rejected. The district court’s fact-finding—upheld on appeal—showed that Gulf Island’s deficient mooring practices, not the hurricane alone, proximately caused the Wild Horse breakaway. The panel reiterated that extreme weather does not immunize negligence if “human skill and precaution” could have averted the damage.
Selective deployment of presumptions. a) Where eyewitness and expert evidence clarified chain-of-events (e.g., Wild Horse/Betty Chouest), the court followed Combo Marine and considered presumptions unnecessary. b) For the moored, unmoving Salvo, however, the absence of direct evidence reinstated both presumptions in its favor, compelling reversal.
Comparative fault calculation. The Fifth Circuit found no “definite and firm conviction” of error in the district court’s 65/35 split. Key factual findings: mixed/slack lines, unburied concrete dead-men, and hand-rail mooring by Gulf Island versus LaShip’s failure to arrange vessels to mitigate northern wind exposure.
Damages valuations. The panel applied the clear-error standard with heightened deference to credibility determinations, sustaining the district court’s reliance on expert testimony and rejection of unexplained quotation increases.

Impact on Future Litigation

Vessel-specific presumptions. Litigants should expect courts to analyze each impacted vessel separately when deciding whether presumptions apply, especially in multi-vessel hurricanes, floods, or breakaway chains.
Burden-shifting strategy. Defendants can no longer safely assume that presenting some evidence on the “main event” disables presumptions for every peripheral casualty. Evidentiary diligence must extend to each individual impact.
Mooring best-practices. The opinion underscores that use of mixed lines, unburied anchors, and hand-rail lashings may constitute negligence per se, even during Category 4 hurricanes.
Damages proof. Shipowners seeking repair costs must tie post-storm quotation increases to objective price data or risk judicial skepticism.
Climate-driven maritime risk. As severe weather events proliferate, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion provides a template for parsing multi-party responsibility without yielding to an undifferentiated “Act of God” shield.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Act of God Defense: A complete defense applicable when a casualty is solely caused by natural forces of such magnitude that no reasonable human skill or prudence could have prevented the harm.
Louisiana Rule: When a moving vessel allides with a stationary object, the moving vessel is presumed at fault and bears the burden to prove otherwise.
Pennsylvania Rule: If a vessel violates a statute or regulation (e.g., Coast Guard mooring requirements), that vessel must prove its violation could not have been a cause of the accident to escape liability.
Comparative Fault in Admiralty: Since 1975 (Reliable Transfer), courts allocate damages proportionally to each party’s degree of negligence rather than automatically splitting 50/50.
Clear-Error Review: Appellate standard deferring to trial courts’ factual findings; reversal occurs only if the appellate court holds a “definite and firm conviction” that error occurred.

Conclusion

Gulf Island Shipyards v. LaShip crystallizes an important doctrinal refinement: maritime presumptions must be evaluated on a vessel-by-vessel basis and survive where an evidentiary void persists, notwithstanding abundant evidence elsewhere in the case. This “targeted” approach preserves the fairness of admiralty burden-shifting while honoring the principle, embodied in Combo Marine, that presumptions recede once factual mysteries are resolved. Combined with its reaffirmation of robust comparative fault and the narrow scope of the Act-of-God defense, the opinion supplies both a cautionary tale for shipyards confronting extreme weather and a practical roadmap for litigators navigating multi-vessel incidents in the Fifth Circuit and beyond.