In re Under the Bridge Watersports: Pontoon Boat Accident and Maritime Liability

Maryland Pontoon Boat Accident and Hydraulic Trim Malfunction

What began as a recreational boating trip in Maryland's Isle of Wight Bay ended in a collision after a rented pontoon boat became stranded on a sandbar. On August 1, 2019, 15 occupants were aboard the vessel when they reportedly encountered a problem with its hydraulic trim mechanism, which raises and lowers the outboard motor. Although the group managed to free the boat from the sandbar, they could not lower the propeller back into the water to regain propulsion. The pontoon drifted into a bridge and capsized, throwing everyone aboard into the water. Nine occupants later pursued injury claims against the rental company, Under the Bridge Watersports, LLC, alleging that mechanical problems and improper passenger loading contributed to the accident.

The dispute proceeded in federal court after Under the Bridge Watersports sought protection under the Limitation of Liability Act. The claims involved the vessel's mechanical condition, passenger weight restrictions, maritime negligence, and the enforceability of liability waivers signed before departure. Expert testimony addressed possible causes of the reported trim-system malfunction and whether excess weight contributed to the collision. In February 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the rental company, finding that the claimants had not established the required connection between the company's alleged negligence and the accident. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the ruling in February 2024, followed by a district court award of attorney fees and litigation costs in June 2024.

Pontoon Boat Collision and Maritime Litigation Timeline

August 1, 2019: Pontoon Boat Strikes Bridge in Maryland

A group of 15 people rented a 22-foot, 2001 Godfrey Marine Company pontoon boat from Under the Bridge Watersports for recreational cruising and tubing. Before departure, a dockhand provided instructions on operating the vessel, including how to raise the motor and push the boat free if it became stuck on a sandbar. During the outing, the occupants successfully raised and lowered the motor while stopping for lunch, but they later reported being unable to lower it after freeing the boat from another grounding. The vessel could no longer propel itself and was carried by a strong current into a bridge, where it capsized and sent all 15 occupants overboard. The U.S. Coast Guard responded to the accident and confirmed that everyone had been retrieved from the water.

April 30, 2020: Rental Company Seeks Maritime Liability Protection

Following the accident, Under the Bridge Watersports filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability under federal maritime law. The company asked the court to find that it was not responsible for the injuries or, alternatively, to limit its financial exposure to the pontoon's post-accident value of $0. Its complaint alleged that the designated operator, Michael Dorris, had operated the vessel at excessive speed and failed to maintain a proper lookout. The filing followed written claims from injured occupants and brought the dispute before the federal court under the Limitation of Liability Act.

November 16, 2020: Nine Occupants Pursue Injury Claims

Nine occupants, including members of the Dorris and Tressler families and Damon Schorr, filed verified claims seeking compensation for physical and emotional injuries. They alleged that Under the Bridge Watersports had provided an unseaworthy vessel and permitted it to carry excessive weight, contributing to the grounding and subsequent collision. The pontoon's capacity plate allowed up to 16 persons or 2,270 pounds, but rental employees had selected the vessel based on the group's headcount without calculating their combined weight. On December 7, 2020, the company answered the claims and filed a counterclaim against Dorris and Tressler involving the rental agreement. The parties later entered discovery and attempted mediation, but those efforts did not resolve the dispute.

December 7, 2021: Marine Surveyor Examines Accident Causation

Stephen B. Mason, AMS, a marine surveyor retained by the claimants, gave deposition testimony about the reported equipment malfunction and the boat's loading condition. His expert report stated that the vessel appeared excessively loaded and attributed the accident to a combination of passenger weight and mechanical problems. During questioning, Mason explained that the electrically driven hydraulic trim mechanism could malfunction because of battery problems, defective electrical connections, or insufficient hydraulic fluid. However, he could not determine the specific reason the mechanism reportedly failed and acknowledged that such a failure could occur without negligence by the rental company. He also agreed that a vessel carrying only one passenger could have been left without propulsion under the same circumstances.

April 6, 2022: Court Denies Request to Add Related Businesses

During discovery, the claimants sought to add Paradise Parasail, LLC, and West OC Marina, LLC, to the proceedings. They argued that the businesses shared ownership, employees, and equipment with Under the Bridge Watersports and should be included in the litigation. Deposition testimony described overlapping operations, but rental documents and earlier discovery responses had already identified the affiliated companies. The court found that the claimants had sufficient information about these businesses before the applicable deadline and had not established that either was responsible for operating the accident vessel. Their request was denied, and the original rental company remained the principal defendant to the injury claims.

May–July 2022: Parties Dispute Vessel Negligence and Causation

On May 25, 2022, Under the Bridge Watersports moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claimants lacked sufficient evidence to establish negligence involving the trim mechanism or passenger loading. The claimants filed a cross-motion on June 15, maintaining that the company had provided an unseaworthy vessel and failed to account for its actual passenger weight. The parties also disagreed over whether the rental agreement barred negligence claims and required the occupants to reimburse the company's legal expenses. Additional written arguments were submitted through July, leaving the judge to determine whether the evidence established a genuine dispute requiring trial.

February 16, 2023: District Court Grants Summary Judgment

U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III ruled in favor of Under the Bridge Watersports after examining the machinery allegations, loading conditions, and available expert testimony. The court found that the claimants had not presented evidence connecting the reported trim malfunction to negligent maintenance, inspection, or another act by the rental company. It also determined that excess passenger weight had not been established as a proximate cause of the accident, noting that the reported machinery failure would have been a superseding cause even if overloading had contributed to earlier events. Although the company disputed whether the trim mechanism had malfunctioned, the court assumed the occupants' account was accurate when deciding the motions. The court granted the company's request for summary judgment, denied the claimants' cross-motion, and upheld the rental agreement's liability release and indemnification provisions.

February 28, 2024: Fourth Circuit Upholds Maritime Liability Ruling

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an unpublished opinion. The appellate panel agreed that the claimants had not established negligence by Under the Bridge Watersports and upheld the company's protection under the Limitation of Liability Act, which restricted any potential recovery to the pontoon's post-accident value of $0. It also found the rental agreement's liability waiver and attorney-fee indemnification provisions enforceable under the circumstances. The claimants presented additional arguments involving res ipsa loquitur, evidence preservation, negligence per se, and unconscionability, but these arguments had not been properly raised before the district court. Finding no reversible error, the Fourth Circuit left the judgment in favor of the rental company intact.

June 25, 2024: Court Approves Attorney Fees and Costs

After the appeal, the district court considered Under the Bridge Watersports' requests for reimbursement of legal expenses under the rental agreement. The company sought $116,921.50 in attorney fees and $8,485.99 in litigation costs associated with defending the claims. The judge reviewed billing records covering more than 640 hours of work performed by five attorneys and one paralegal, including discovery, contested motions, settlement proceedings, and appellate work. Finding the requested amounts reasonable, the court approved a combined award of $125,407.49. The decision resolved the documented fee requests following the company's successful defense of the maritime injury claims.

Maritime Engineering and Expert Witness Analysis

1. Marine Surveying Expert Witness – Stephen B. Mason, (Plaintiff)

   Mason evaluated the reported trim-system malfunction, passenger loading, and possible causes of the accident. His analysis drew on vessel photographs, witness materials, police reports, passenger information, ownership records, and research concerning the boat's capacity limits. In his written report, Mason attributed the collision and capsize to excessive loading combined with mechanical problems.

   During his December 7, 2021 deposition, Mason acknowledged that the trim mechanism could have malfunctioned without negligence by Under the Bridge Watersports. He identified possible electrical and hydraulic causes but could not determine the specific reason for the reported failure. Mason had not physically inspected the vessel wreckage or interviewed Coast Guard and Maryland Department of Natural Resources personnel before his deposition. He also acknowledged that the same malfunction could have left a vessel carrying only one passenger unable to navigate against the current.

2. Marine Engineering Expert Witness

   A marine engineering expert is often engaged in disputes involving vessel machinery failures, propulsion systems, hydraulic equipment, and mechanical defects. These experts may inspect vessel components, review maintenance records, and evaluate mechanical and electrical systems to identify possible causes of equipment failure. Their findings may address equipment condition, maintenance practices, design defects, and whether machinery problems contributed to a marine accident.

3. Naval Architect Expert Witness

   A naval architect expert witness is often engaged in cases involving vessel stability, passenger capacity, weight distribution, and capsizing accidents. These experts may examine vessel design specifications, loading conditions, buoyancy, and structural features to assess how a boat responds under different operating conditions. Their evaluations may address whether vessel loading, design characteristics, or stability problems contributed to an accident.

4. Recreational Accidents Expert Witness

   A recreational accidents expert witness is often engaged in disputes involving boating accidents, vessel handling, navigation, and passenger safety during recreational activities. These experts may review accident circumstances, operating procedures, safety instructions, equipment conditions, and applicable regulations to assess potential causes of an incident. Their analysis may also address operator conduct, emergency responses, and whether established safety practices were followed.

Marine Machinery Failure and Maritime Negligence Findings

1. An Alleged Trim-System Failure Did Not Establish Negligence

   The reported equipment problem concerned the motor's trim mechanism, which uses an electrically powered hydraulic pump to raise or lower the outboard motor. After freeing the pontoon from the sandbar, the occupants said they could not return the motor to a position that allowed the propeller to produce usable thrust.

   Mason discussed several possible causes, including an electrical connection problem, insufficient battery power, or a shortage of hydraulic fluid. He did not determine which condition, if any, caused the reported failure. The district court found no evidence establishing that Under the Bridge Watersports had negligently maintained or inspected the mechanism or otherwise caused the problem.

   The legal question was not simply whether the equipment stopped working. The claimants also had to connect that failure to conduct for which the rental company could be held responsible. Their evidence did not establish that connection.

2. Passenger Weight and Vessel Capacity Raised Separate Questions

   The pontoon carried 15 occupants, one fewer than the maximum number stated on its capacity plate. However, the same plate also established a weight limit of 2,270 pounds, and employees had not calculated the group's combined weight when assigning the vessel.

   The claimants maintained that excessive weight caused the boat to sit too low in the water and contributed to the accident. Their argument relied partly on Mason's observations about the vessel's loading condition.

   The court distinguished the possibility of overloading from proof that the alleged condition caused the collision. Mason acknowledged that the loss of propulsion could have exposed even a lightly loaded boat to the current. The judge therefore concluded that the claimants had not established the required causal relationship between passenger weight and their injuries.

3. Expert Testimony Did Not Resolve the Cause of the Collision

   Mason's written report connected the accident to both passenger loading and mechanical problems. His deposition, however, placed limits on that conclusion.

   When asked whether the same trim malfunction could have affected a boat carrying only one person, Mason agreed that it could. He also acknowledged several possible mechanical causes without identifying one as the probable explanation for the reported failure.

   The district court considered these statements when evaluating whether the alleged excess weight was a substantial factor in the accident. It determined that the reported trim malfunction accounted for the loss of powered navigation and would constitute a superseding cause even if earlier loading problems had contributed. The court therefore rejected the claimants' causation theory without resolving every dispute over the vessel's actual loading condition.

4. Coast Guard Findings Were Excluded Because of Late Disclosure

   During summary-judgment proceedings, the claimants submitted a Coast Guard report describing observations made after the accident. The report stated that the trim mechanism had been found in the lowered position and that subsequent testing showed it was functioning.

   However, the claimants obtained the report after discovery had closed and had not properly disclosed it within the required period. The district court excluded the material from its analysis.

   The judge proceeded by assuming that the occupants had accurately described the malfunction rather than deciding whether the trim system had actually failed. As a result, the ruling did not identify a specific defective component or establish the precise mechanical condition that prevented the occupants from restoring propulsion.

5. Federal Maritime Law and Rental Agreements Limited Recovery

   The Limitation of Liability Act permits vessel owners, under qualifying circumstances, to restrict liability for maritime accidents to the vessel's post-accident value. Under the Bridge Watersports sought that protection because the damaged pontoon had a stated remaining value of $0.

   The company also relied on contractual provisions signed by the adult renters before departure. These included a release addressing negligence claims and an agreement to reimburse certain attorney fees and litigation costs.

   The district court found that the claimants had not established the negligence required to overcome the company's statutory and contractual defenses. The Fourth Circuit upheld those conclusions and rejected the remaining appellate arguments. Afterward, the district court approved the company's requested legal expenses under the enforceable indemnification provision.

Conclusion

The litigation concluded with Under the Bridge Watersports prevailing against the nine claimants who sought compensation following the pontoon-boat accident. The district court determined that the evidence did not establish negligence by the rental company concerning the reported mechanical failure or a sufficient causal connection between alleged excess passenger weight and the injuries. On February 28, 2024, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment, leaving the company's liability limited to the vessel's post-accident value of $0 and upholding the applicable rental agreement provisions. The remaining documented fee dispute resulted in a June 25, 2024 award of $116,921.50 in attorney fees and $8,485.99 in litigation costs, bringing the total amount awarded to Under the Bridge Watersports to $125,407.49.