The Express was found partially at fault for not maintaining a proper lookout. Had they done so, the finding would probably have been different.
Most collisions do not find 100% fault with one party.
The Defendant Express denied that they did not have a proper watch. The judge seems to have reached the conclusion based on reverse logic. He first concludes that the S/V Camera was displaying the proper lights. Then he concludes that the Express must not have had a proper watch or it would have seen the lights:
"Given the finding that the CAMERA was displaying proper navigation lights, the fault of the EXPRESS logically follows.Defendants offered evidence, which I accept, that had the CAMERA been displaying no lights, she could not have been seen by those on board the EXPRESS in sufficient time to avoid collision, given the characteristics of the latter vessel. But I have found that the CAMERA was displaying the lights required by the rules; and there is no suggestion that the EXPRESS could not have fulfilled her obligation of avoiding the CAMERA if the CAMERA was displaying a proper sternlight which the EXPRESS's lookout had timely observed. In these circumstances, the EXPRESS must be held in fault."
So, basically, since the motor vessel hit the sailing vessel at night while the s/v displayed lights, the motor vessel shared in the fault.
Well, the sailboat owner lost his boat, but at least he caught up on some sleep (and was awarded damages). All things considered, he was a lucky fellow that night...