Unity Marine Corp. v. New Amity Shipping, Inc. ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit June 12, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20465
UNITY MARINE CORPORATION, INC. as owner of the M/V Carson
for exoneration from or limitation of liability,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
NEW AMITY SHIPPING, INC.; ASSOCIATED MARITIME CO.,
(HONG KONG) LTD.
Claimants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After reviewing the record and considering the briefs of the
parties and argument of counsel, for the following reasons, we are
satisfied that the district court committed no reversible error:
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The record fully supports the district court’s conclusion that
this collision was caused through the sole fault of the NEW AMITY,
her pilot and crew in (1) failing to keep out of the way of the
CARSON, as required by Rule 13 of the Inland Rules, and (2) by
traveling at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances in
violation of Rule 6. See Matter of Complaint of Luhr Bros., Inc.,
157 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 1998) (“The appellate court must accept
the district court's account of the evidence if it is plausible
when viewed in light of the entire record. Moreover, where there
are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice
between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”) (citations omitted).
Further, the district court did not err in allowing Unity’s
expert to testify nor in accepting his testimony over the testimony
of New Amity’s expert. Captain Scruton held an unlimited master’s
license and had 16 years of seagoing experience, including
experience aboard large tankers as well as aboard inland tugs. He
testified that he had served aboard large vessels in narrow
channels during passing situations and that he had observed first
hand the general movements of large vessels engaged in turns.
Given the similarity and relevance of these previous experiences to
Captain Scruton’s testimony in this case, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. See Watkins
v. Telsmity, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 988 (5th Cir. 1997) (“District
courts enjoy wide latitude in determining the admissibility of
expert testimony, and the discretion of the trial judge and his or
2
her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly
erroneous.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
New Amity primarily challenges the credibility calls of the
district court which is almost exclusively in the province of the
trier of fact. See Luhr Bros., 157 F.3d at 337 (“Findings of fact,
whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set
aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to
the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of
the witnesses.”).
AFFIRMED.
3