(“The SAR Plan imposes no extra statutory pre-existing legal duty on the Coast Guard.”); Daley, 499 F.Supp. at 1010 (stating that the National SAR manual and the Addendum “do not define a standard of care owing to the public”); Addendum, supra, at 2 (“The Coast Guard retains the discretion to deviate from ... this guidance without notice. This document creates no duties, standard of care, or obligations to the public and should not be relied upon as a representation by the Coast Guard as to the manner of proper performance in any particular ease.”). While a failure to comply with either manual is relevant to an evaluation of whether the Coast Guard acted with reasonable care in its rescue efforts, it is not dispositive. Cf. Doe v. United States, 718 F.2d 1039, 1041 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). B. Negligence Claims Plaintiffs argue that
holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence holding that a postal employees violations of internal customer safety regulations do not constitute negligence per se holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se