The Lisa C, owned by Childress Co Inc, was engaged in towing the barges DC 310, DC 373 and DC 371 through the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The barges were chartered to Dow Chemical Co and owned by Security Pacific Equipment Leasing Inc (the defendants). Due to the rough sea, the Lisa C and the tow, which was loaded with benzene, broke up. The US Coast Guard sent out a distress call to any vessels in the vicinity to assist in the recapture of the barges. Six vessels, including two owned by Trico Marine Operators Inc and one owned by Sea Mar Operators Inc (the plaintiffs), responded to the call and rounded up the barges.

The plaintiffs argued that, in addition to rescuing the barges and cargo, they prevented an environmental disaster in the sense that their salvage operation prevented any benzene from escaping from the barges and causing damage to the environment. Therefore, they sought an award for the averted liability that the defendants would have faced, including statutory liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980 (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages for averted liability. The defendants argued that no courts in the US have recognised the concept of liability salvage.

Held: Motion granted.

The Court first examined US case law regarding the criteria for determining a salvage award. In dicta in Allseas Maritime SA v M/V Mimosa 812 F 2d 243 (5th Cir 1987) the Fifth Circuit noted that there was considerable merit to the position that salvors should be compensated for liability avoided. However, the Fifth Circuit declined to consider an award for averted liability because of the Limitation of Liability Act 1851, which ordinarily permits shipowners to limit their liability to the value of their vessels and cargo.

In addition to US case law, the Court examined the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (Salvage Convention 1989) regarding the criteria for determining a salvage award. Article 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989 provides that one of the criteria is 'the skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimising damage to the environment'. However, the award cannot exceed the value of the salved vessel and cargo. Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989 provides that a salvor who prevents environmental damage may recover special compensation in the amount of up to 200% of its expenses where that amount would exceed the amount of a conventional salvage award under art 13. Thus, a salvor who has salved a vessel of little value, but has prevented environmental damage, may recover in excess of the value of the property saved. The Salvage Convention 1989 does not contain the concept of liability salvage, because the concept was rejected in the negotiations leading up to the Convention.

In light of the rejection of liability salvage in the Salvage Convention 1989, the Court declined to follow the dicta in Allseas Maritime SA v M/V Mimosa. Instead, the Court added an additional factor in determining a salvage award, namely, the skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimising damage to the environment.