Florida Boat Owner Injured When Mast Strikes Bridge During Tow Succeeds in Federal Maritime Appeal

Abdel-Illah Zidal, a Florida resident with little boating experience, has secured a major win in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals following a maritime accident that occurred during a tow by Tow Boat U.S.–affiliated companies. The court’s ruling in Jersey Shore Boat Towing & Salvage, Inc., et al. v. Abdel-Illah Zidal, Case No. 24-13009, affirms that the towing companies are not entitled to exoneration or limitation of liability under federal maritime law. The lawsuit arises from a 2020 incident in which the mast of Zidal’s sailboat struck a fixed bridge on Florida’s Banana River, causing serious personal injuries.

Bridge Collision Occurs After Tug Tows Sailboat with Oversized Mast Under Fixed Span on Banana River

The accident occurred on November 18, 2020, as Zidal’s 30-foot S2 9.2C sailboat was being towed northbound to a marina just past the Pineda Causeway. The tow was arranged after Zidal’s anchor chain snapped during a storm, causing the boat to drift and run aground near Merritt Island. Lacking an engine, electronics, or VHF radio, Zidal relied on a private marine towing company, Absolute Boat Towing & Salvage, a Florida-based Tow Boat U.S. franchise. Absolute Boat used a 28-foot Zodiac rigid inflatable boat to tow Action, with Zidal remaining on board the sailboat during the transit.

Although the tow route required passage beneath the Pineda Causeway Bridge—a span with a fixed clearance of 43 feet—the tug captain, Charles Nunn, did not verify the mast height of the sailboat before the voyage. As the flotilla passed beneath the bridge, the mast struck the underside of the northern span, triggering a swinging boom that struck Zidal in the head. The collision caused bodily injuries and prompted a lawsuit seeking damages under maritime law.

Eleventh Circuit Finds Tug Operator Failed to Exercise Maritime Skill by Ignoring Risk of Allision with Known Fixed Structure

The appellate court found the tug operator’s failure to assess mast height before attempting passage under the bridge to be a clear deviation from the standard of care required under admiralty law. Although Nunn claimed he relied on a “rule of thumb” that mast height is roughly 1.5 times a boat’s length, he misapplied the calculation. Zidal’s 30-foot sailboat should have yielded an estimated mast height of 45 feet—exceeding the bridge clearance by two feet. Despite this, no measurements were taken, and no precautions were implemented to avoid an allision with the bridge.

Citing Stevens v. The White City, the court reiterated that a tug has a duty to exercise prudent seamanship and reasonable care for the safety of its tow, including using all available means to assess navigational risks. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the allision was not caused solely by the unseaworthiness of the towed vessel but was due in large part to the negligence of the towing company.

District Court Properly Applied Dominant Mind and Pennsylvania Rules to Deny Exoneration in Banana River Tow Accident

The court upheld the application of the dominant mind doctrine, which places liability on the tug when it is primarily responsible for navigation decisions involving a flotilla. Although Zidal had chosen the marina destination and was present aboard his vessel, he had no meaningful control over navigation decisions or clearance assessments. The tug, under Nunn’s sole command, functioned as the dominant mind and bore primary responsibility for avoiding fixed hazards.

The court also applied the Pennsylvania Rule, which shifts the burden of proof onto a party that violates a navigational rule. Nunn failed to comply with Rule 7 of the Inland Navigation Rules by making assumptions based on “scanty information.” Because he failed to use all appropriate means to determine whether the mast would clear the bridge, the towing company could not overcome the presumption of causation triggered by this regulatory violation.

Owner’s Knowledge and Involvement in Tow Operation Defeated Limitation of Liability Defense Under Federal Maritime Law

In seeking protection under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., the towing companies argued that the incident occurred without their privity or knowledge. But the district court, and ultimately the Eleventh Circuit, found otherwise. Charles Tharp, owner of both Jersey Shore Boat Towing and Absolute Boat Towing, personally approved the tow, leased the tug through a bareboat charter, and knew that the transit would involve passage beneath the Pineda Causeway. Tharp also failed to establish policies requiring captains to measure mast height before a tow—despite being familiar with the clearance risks on this route.

Under Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. State of Florida, the court reaffirmed that an owner’s knowledge can be inferred when the means of discovering a hazard were readily available. Because Tharp could have prevented the accident with reasonable diligence, the court denied the companies’ effort to cap liability based on the vessel’s post-incident value.

Eleventh Circuit Ruling Highlights High Bar for Limitation of Liability in Maritime Personal Injury Cases Involving Commercial Tows

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion affirms a growing trend in maritime jurisprudence: courts will not insulate vessel owners from liability when avoidable navigation errors lead to injuries, particularly when the towing company exercises full control over route planning and hazard assessment. The decision sends a strong signal to marine towing operators that casual assumptions regarding vessel dimensions—especially under known bridge structures—will not suffice under federal maritime standards.

Were You Hurt During a Marine Tow? Towing Companies May Be Liable for Maritime Negligence

If you suffered injuries while aboard a towed vessel or were hurt during a tow operation due to a bridge strike, capsizing, or collision, you may have a claim under maritime law. Vessel operators, including tug and tow companies, are obligated to follow strict safety protocols and navigation rules. When they fail to do so, they may be fully liable for resulting injuries—even if they try to invoke the Limitation of Liability Act.

Contact our maritime injury team to learn how we can help you assert your rights and pursue compensation.