Speeding to Strict Liability? Establishing Fault of a Driver-Passenger

Holzhauer v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transp. Dist., 899 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2018).

By: Emily Welch

This action arises out of a collision involving a speedboat operated by Harry Holzhauer and M/S SAN FRANCISCO ferry. Mary Holzhauer, as representative of her late husband’s estate, sued David Rohades and the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District ("GGB"). There were two subsequent cross-claims and counterclaims filed by Rhoades and GGB.The district court granted Rhoades motion for judgment as a matter of law against both Mrs. Holzahauer and GBB. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying federal maritime law, affirmed the decision of the district court holding that a vessel owner who is acting as a passenger on his vessel does not have a duty to act as lookout unless the owner-passenger has reason to know that the operator of the vessel is likely to be inattentive or careless or if the owner-passenger was jointly operating the vessel at the time of the collision. Additionally, the court held joint operation must be considered at the time “immediately preceding and concurrent” with the collision. It stated, as an added reason for reaching this conclusion, that its holding aids in avoiding a circuit split in dealing with similar cases in the future.The appeals court relied on the principles set forth in Weissman v. Boating Magazine[1], which does not differentiate between an ordinary vessel passenger and a passenger who is also the vessel owner if the boat owner entrusts it to a competent operator. Therefore, the question that is posed by Mrs. Holzhauer’s appeal is what legal standard should apply when a vessel-owner is acting as a passenger on that vessel. The court reasoned that Rhoades had a duty to act reasonably by entrusting the operation of his vessel to Mr. Holzhauer. The record suggests that Rhoades was not negligent in this entrustment because Mr. Holzhauer was a cautious and experienced operator.GGB appealed on the same grounds but focused on the lack of radar reflectors on the speedboat which limited M/V SAN FRANCISCO’s ability to detect the speedboat. The district court found that the reflectors were not required and therefore the lack of reflectors did not establish a breach of duty against Rhoades. The court affirmed that finding stating that “good practice” cannot be used to establish liability absent certain facts.The appeals court stated that there was a lack of evidence to support a finding that Rhoades acted negligently in his duty under the circumstances. His duty was to ensure that the person who was entrusted with the operation of his speedboat was a competent boater but outside of that, no duty existed and Rhoades is entitled to the full amount of recovery that was awarded to him. [1] 946 F.2d 811 (11th Cir. 1991).