The Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Louisiana Rules in Maritime Cases

Three ships from the nineteenth century still turn up in modern maritime litigation, by name. The Oregon, the Louisiana, and the Pennsylvania each gave their names to a rule that shifts the burden of proof in vessel casualty cases. Lawyers argue about how far those rules reach. Mariners need to understand what they mean on the water, because the facts that rebut them are operational.

What follows is a mariner's plain-language summary, not legal advice. Counsel will know how the courts in their circuit apply each one.

The Oregon Rule: a moving vessel hits something that is not moving

When a moving vessel strikes a stationary object (a pier, a bridge, a moored ship, a dock), the law presumes the moving vessel was at fault. The reasoning is simple. Bridges and piers do not maneuver. If a ship under way hits one, something probably went wrong aboard the ship.

The presumption can be rebutted. The moving vessel can show that the stationary object was at fault (an unlit obstruction, a pier where it should not have been), that the vessel acted with reasonable care, or that the accident could not have been prevented by ordinary skill and caution.

That is where the operational facts come in. Was the vessel's speed reasonable for the current and wind? Did the pilot or master plan the approach properly? Was there enough tug assistance? Did the engine or steering fail, and if so, was that failure foreseeable and was the crew prepared for it? An allision with a bridge during high water on a river is a very different case from an allision with a pier on a calm day, and the analysis has to show why.

The Louisiana Rule: a vessel drifts into something

The Louisiana Rule applies the same idea to a vessel that breaks free and drifts. A drifting vessel that strikes something is presumed at fault, because properly moored vessels do not break loose.

Rebutting it usually means showing the mooring was adequate for the conditions that could reasonably have been expected, and that what happened was beyond what a prudent mariner would have prepared for. Mooring arrangements, line condition, weather forecasts, river stage, and who checked the lines and when all become central.

The Pennsylvania Rule: a statutory violation shifts the burden

The Pennsylvania Rule is the strictest of the three. When a vessel involved in a collision was violating a statutory rule meant to prevent collisions, the burden shifts to that vessel to show its violation could not have been a cause of the accident, not merely that it probably was not.

The rules most often at issue are the navigation rules themselves: lookout, safe speed, lights, sound signals, and conduct in restricted visibility. A vessel without a proper lookout, or running at an unsafe speed in fog, faces a heavy burden.

Courts have debated how far the rule should reach, and some have limited it. That is a question for counsel. But the factual work is the same either way: identify what rule applied, decide whether the vessel was in violation, and analyze whether the violation could have contributed to what happened.

How the presumptions fit with comparative fault

These rules decide who has to prove what. They do not end the case. Since the Supreme Court's 1975 decision in United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., admiralty courts divide damages by each party's share of fault. A vessel can carry a presumption against it and still show the other side bears some of the responsibility.

Where the expert fits

An expert does not apply these rules. The court does. What an expert can do is supply the facts the rules depend on: whether the approach was prudent, whether the mooring was adequate, whether a lookout was posted and doing his job, and whether a violation could have mattered. In my work on the Navigation Safety Advisory Council and on the water, those are the questions I spent my career on.

About the author

Captain Mitchell S. Stoller is a Master Mariner Unlimited, former Exxon tanker master, and former Los Angeles Harbor pilot. About Captain Stoller