The tanker MANTINIA ran aground outside Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico on June 1, 1994, while carrying 314,273 barrels of black oil. The shipowner, Metro Freighting Corp., thought that the ship was simply mired in soft mud, and that little peril or danger of environmental disaster existed. Metro refused professional salvage assistance and attempted to keep the situation under the control of Captain Souralis, the Master of the MANTINIA. Recognizing that some of the cargo of oil may have to be discharged onto lighters in order to free the ship, Metro hired Ted Hosking, a salvage master offered by Smit International (a worldwide salvage company), to provide advice in developing a salvage lightering plan. Mr. Hosking was provided by Smit on a contract basis. He was to be paid $1,250 per day plus travel/lodging expenses. Mr. Hosking flew immediately from Texas (where he was engaged in a different salvage operation) to the MANTINIA.

When Mr. Hosking arrived aboard the MANTINIA, he did not find a ship aground on a soft muddy bottom. Instead, he found that the ship was pounding on a hard coral bottom in 10-foot swells pushed by 30-knot winds. The bow was flexing, the masts were vibrating, and he could not stand up without a firm handhold. The Coast Guard was aboard the MANTINIA and although no oil had been spilled, it was closely monitoring this potential environmental disaster. In the meantime, Metro had refused additional offers by Smit to perform contract salvage under a Lloyd’s Open Form. Instead, it was content to allow Captain Souralis, to attempt to pull the ship off using several harbor tugs. It was clear to Mr. Hosking that this method was a waste of time. On his way out to the MANTINIA Mr. Hosking had observed that the 9,000 h.p. tug MARINER (upon which he had sailed in the past) was pushing a lightering barge. Mr. Hosking contacted the owners of the MARINER and determined that the MARINER was available for hire. He then attempted to convince Captain Souralis to use the powerful MARINER as a pulling tug, rather than for towing lighters. However, Captain Souralis, insisted on attempting another refloating effort using only the harbor tugs.

Meanwhile, the situation was becoming more serious. It was only a matter of time before the hull became holed. The Federal On Scene Commander (FOSC) was insisting on quick action and agreed with the plan proposed by Hosking. The FOSC was later quoted as saying “I am not at all comfortable with the thought of playing chicken with an environmental disaster and a $1 billion + cleanup because an owner and/or his insurer hope to avoid a few million dollar salvage award.” During the evening of June 2, Mr. Hosking gradually assumed control over the salvage operation. Despite some feuding with the Captain, Mr. Hosking took the tugs under his orders, and at 0521 on June 3, just after high tide, Mr. Hosking’s plan proved its worth when the MANTINIA was refloated. The severity of the situation was later confirmed after the MANTINIA reached drydock and was found in need of $2 million in bottom and rudder repairs.

Subsequently, Smit International and Hosking filed suit, seeking a salvage reward. In Smit Americas, Inc. v. M/T MANTINIA, et al., 259 F.Supp.2d 118 (April 22, 2003), the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico issued its decision that Smit and Hosking were entitled to a salvage reward. The central issue was the voluntariness of their services. The shipowner claimed that Hosking’s services had been performed under his per diem contract as an advisory salvage master. Therefore they argued that his services were not voluntary, and that he was not entitled to a pure salvage reward. However, the court disagreed, holding that the contract was merely for salvage lightering advice, and was entered into based upon an inaccurate perception of the situation (that the ship was lightly aground on soft mud and not in any particular peril). The peril proved to be much greater, and the services provided by Hosking evolved with the heightened peril. Eventually, Mr. Hosking was no longer providing merely lightering advice, but had taken complete control of a full-blown salvage operation. He hired the services of the MARINER and gave the orders to the tugs himself. The court held that Mr. Hosking’s services went well beyond the advisory contract and that he had voluntarily assumed control of a successful pure salvage operation. The court held that Smit/Hosking were entitled to a salvage reward in an amount to be determined later.

In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the extent to which a shipowner may go when refusing offers of professional salvage services. The court acknowledged the general rule that the shipowner’s right to refuse salvage services is limited in situations in which there is an imminent danger of large losses of the property of third persons. Under such circumstances, in the event that a prudent man would accept the offered salvage services, the owner loses its right of refusal. Although the owners of the MANTINIA did not interfere with Mr. Hosking taking control of the salvage operation, had the owners objected, the court noted that Mr. Hosking may have been justified in taking control anyway, as long as a prudent man would have accepted the services he could provide.