Marport, Inc., an Oregon Corporation and California Dredging, a California Corporation v. Stabbert and Associates, Inc., a Washington Corporation

Marport concedes that under the terms of the towage agreement, it may recover from Stabbert only by demonstrating that the tug’s unseaworthiness caused Mar-port’s loss. The district court, failing to find any material factual issue as to the seaworthiness of the tug, granted summary judgment for Stabbert. Because we agree with the ruling of the district court, we need not pass upon Stabbert’s opening contention that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under The Umbria, 166 U.S. 404 , 17 S.Ct. 610 , 41 L.Ed. 1053 (1897), and progeny. See, e.g., A & S Transportation Co., Inc. v. Tug Fajardo, 688 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1982); Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V Manna L., 633 F.2d 789 , 797 (9th Cir.1980).

A. Seaworthiness and a Proper Lookout

Posting a proper lookout has been called “the first rule of seamanship.” Marport contends that Stabbert’s reliance upon the tug captain to serve as lookout while simultaneously piloting the tug violated this rule, rendering the tug unseaworthy. We disagree.

Captain Dunatov and his mate alternated 12-hour watches. The record is uncontested that, during the period immediately pri- or to the capsizing, the dredge had been kept under relatively…