omission ‘if harm of a general sort to persons of a general class might have been anticipated by a reasonably thoughtful person, as a probable result of the act or omission, considering the interplay of natural forces and likely human intervention.' " (emphasis added) (quoting Consol. Aluminum, 833 F.2d at 68)). 20 . Combo Mar., Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC, 615 F.3d 599, 606 (5th Cir.2010) (omission in original) (quoting Fischer, 508 F.3d at 594). 21 . Cf., e.g., Theriot, 245 F.3d at 393-95 (stating that district court did not clearly err in finding that Corps was negligent in failing to place warning sign at location of underwater sill it had constructed, even though no regulation required it to do so); Sheridan Transp. Co. v. United States, 834 F.2d 467, 474 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 22 . Any suggestion by the district court
holding that infringement laws simply do not apply to a nontrademark use of a mark holding that coast guard was not required to mark wreck but once it chose to do so it had duty to use due care holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark holding that debtors actions were not willful where there was a creditor which the debtor chose to pay first and thought that it was in his financial interest to do so holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care