Texas, not Maritime, Law Applied to Claim Arising from Intoxication on Chartered Fishing Boat

Case:
Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Arthey
Texas Supreme Court
2014 Tex. LEXIS 502

The underlying accident occurred in May 2008. Christopher and Denise Arthey, riding motorcycles, were struck head-on by a vehicle driven by David Huff in Port Aransas, Texas. Huff was returning home from a three-day fishing trip organized by Schlumberger at the Shoal Grass Lodge. Huff, an employee of Petrobras America, Inc., was invited by Schlumberger to attend the fishing trip, to foster good business relations.

Schlumberger had the Lodge provide the twelve guests with rooms, meals, an open bar, and a total of eight to ten hours of bay fishing from small boats with professional guides. On the morning of the accident, Huff and a Schlumberger employee, William Ney, took a fishing trip, during which Huff assumed (he could not remember) he had consumed alcohol, as he recalled drinking “something from a can wrapped in a koozie.” The boat returned to the lodge at approximately 1:00 p.m., and Huff collided with the Artheys at 2:30 p.m., some 40 miles from the Lodge. Three hours after the accident, Huffs’ blood alcohol content was measured at 0.25, more than three times the legal limit, and Huff subsequently pleaded guilty to the criminal offense of intoxication assault.

The Artheys suffered severe injuries, with each requiring the amputation of a leg. The Artheys sued Schlumberger, alleging that it negligently allowed Huff to drink excessively. Expert testimony established Huff must have been drinking on the boat, as his blood alcohol content was too high for him to have started drinking only after he returned to the Lodge. Texas law does not recognize social host liability, and Schlumberger claimed it owed no duty to the Artheys to refrain from providing alcohol to Huff. The Artheys, however, argued federal maritime law applied because Huff became intoxicated while on the fishing boat, and the Artheys contended maritime law would impose liability.

The parties conceded for maritime law to apply the cause of action must arise in admiralty. The Texas Supreme Court, relying on federal precedent, recognized that a party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity. The Court noted the question of location was a factual issue, and it’s discussion centered on the second factor. According to the Court, the incident, generally described, was the consumption of alcoholic beverages by guests aboard small, chartered fishing boats on navigable waters. Under prior jurisprudence, to determine connection to maritime activity, courts must consider “whether the incident be seen within a class of incidents that posed more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping.” The Court then reasoned the consumption of alcohol in this case posed no threat to navigation because the guests did not operate the boat; the guide did. In holding the connection to maritime activity factor was not satisfied, the Court noted, “Drinking while fishing, if not a time-honored tradition, is certainly common enough that, if it posed more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping, reports of disruptions to commerce would abound.” As such, the Court held the Artheys could not meet the connection test for a claim in admiralty, and consequently, maritime law did not govern their claim against Schlumberger. The Court did not reach the question of whether maritime law would allow host liquor liability.