May an owner's preservation of the approved design of a structure in navigable waters which is in compliance with its approved design, constitute negligence in a case involving an allision with the structure?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Rivers and Harbors Act (now 33 U.S.C. §401 et seq.) was adopted by Congress in 1899 to establish a process to approve structures built in navigable waters. The Act requires that all such structures be built and maintained in accordance with design plans reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers. Since the adoption of the Rivers and Harbors Act, federal courts have held that conformity to the approved design plans meets the owner’s legal standard of care for the design. See Monongahela Bridge v. United States, 216 U.S. 177, 195, 30 S. Ct. 356, 361, 54 L.Ed. 435 (1910) (approval of design has the effect of an Act of Congress and cannot be questioned by a trier of fact in a court case); Texas and Pacific Ry. Co. v. Angola Transfer Co., 18 F.2d 18, 19 (5th Cir. 1927) App. 89 (bridge owner’s duty of design is to conform to the approved plans, cannot be found negligent if it conforms); State of Oregon v. Tug Go-Getter, 468 F.2d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 1972) (same). In conflict with these prior decisions, the Eighth Circuit held that a bridge owner has a common law duty of reasonable care regarding its bridge design and can be found negligent, irrespective of compliance with the approved design. See Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation v. Ingram Barge Company, 918 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2019). The question presented on appeal is: May an owner’s preservation of the approved design of a structure in navigable waters which is in compliance with its approved design, constitute negligence in a case involving an allision with the structure? ii PARTIES TO THE CASE,