[This article is no longer valid. See later article]
The Coast Guard investigates marine casualties under the authority of 46 CFR 4.07-1. Most reports contain three sections, the "Findings of Fact", "Recommendations" and "Conclusions".
In a recent case tried in Federal District Court, San Francisco, the Coast Guard and a commercial shipping line, codefendants in a negligence action, settled with the plaintiff and cross claimed for contribution against each other.
Two Coast Guard investigations were admitted into evidence in their entirety as admissions of a party opponent under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Both held that there were errors in judgement or improper procedures by the Coast Guard. One report was that required under 46 CFR 4.07; the other was an internal report not required by any regulation but conducted for the purpose of identifying areas in which Coast Guard procedures could be improved.
Upon appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the judgement was vacated and remanded.
The regulation specifically states that, "the investigation of marine casualties and accidents and the determinations made are for the purpose of taking appropriate measures for promoting safety of life and property at sea, and are not intended to fix civil or criminal responsibility" (emphasis added - 46 CFR 4.07-1(b). Because the two reports contained such incriminating admissions, the court stated that "it would be difficult to conclude the reports, if admitted into evidence, could be construed other than to 'fix civil. . . responsibility.'" Thus the court held "that under 46 CFR 4.07-1(b), the Coast Guard investigating officers' conclusions and recommendations in the reports are inadmissible as evidence in this private litigation arising out of the accident that was the subject of the reports." (emphasis added).
It is interesting that the court lumped both of these investigations together and protected the opinions of both under the regulation that applied to only one. Also, contrary to what many attorneys feared, this decision is only of interest to those cases where an attempt is being made to use the conclusions and recommendations against the Coast Guard. Many courts (though not all) have long held that the conclusions and recommendations of an investigation conducted under the authority of 46 CFR 4.07 are not admissible under the rules of evidence. However, the finding of fact are still admissible under this ruling where the Coast Guard is one of the defendants and in other rulings where the Coast Guard is not a party.
Huber v United States D.C. No. CV-82-5492-RPA filed by the Ninth Circuit Court Feb. 5 1988.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue