The Coast Guard: Always Ready, Sometimes Careful

The government presently is liable for the negligent conduct of the Coast Guard. Why and how such liability arises is the subject of this comment. In considering this subject three central questions are presented: First, whether the various acts abrogating the sovereign immunity of the federal government have been correctly applied to the Coast Guard; second, assuming that sovereign immunity has been waived, the extent of the duty owed by the Coast Guard to persons in distress; and third, after a finding of liability, the effect of the statutory extension of the admiralty doctrine of limitation of liability upon damage awards. Finally, it will be demonstrated that the resolution of each question proceeds along essentially the same basis, and that an analytical framework designed to answer any one of these problems will serve to answer them all. Hence the legal system to be applied in immunity actions is not the independent analysis of three separate areas as the courts have tended to construe it; it is rather a unified approach presenting a series of governmental and individual interests to resolve all issues. The Coast Guard, by statute and court decision, is liable for its negligent acts. This result has not been reached without several elaborate fictions. The desirability of applying the statutes to the Coast Guard has been challenged. And recent cases indicate that the courts will continue to circumscribe the extent of liability either by the imposition of a narrow duty or by a strict causative analysis in the application of the doctrine of limitation of liability.