Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transportation Co.

243 F.2d 733
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 1957
DocketNo. 291, Docket 24478
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 733 (Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transportation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transportation Co., 243 F.2d 733 (2d Cir. 1957).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are already committed to the view that an appeal lies from refusal to dissolve an injunction entered in limitation proceedings enjoining the institution of suits and the prosecution of claims elsewhere than in these proceedings. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Gallotta, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 870; The Salvore, 2 Cir., 36 F.2d 712, certiorari denied United States Steel Products Co. v. Navigazione, etc., 287 U.S. 653, 53 S.Ct. 117, 77 L.Ed. 565. Appellants, two damage claimants, seek reversal of the district court’s refusal to dismiss the tug owner’s petition because it does not in terms allege his lack of privity and knowledge as to the accident. But the rather extensive petition does set forth the “facts and circumstances,” as directed in Admiralty Rule 51 — which is the carefully drawn rule proposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, as shown by its Reports of Oct. 1-4, 1946, 23, 24, and Sept. 25-27, 1947, 21-25, following proposals of the Maritime Law Association of the United States, and which contains no requirement for the pleading of the legal conclusions desired of the court. There is nothing in the background of the rule — and no reason is disclosed — why admiralty practice should be more hypertechnical than ordinary procedure under the civil rules. [735]*735See, e.g., Gins v. Mauser Plumbing Supply Co., 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 974, 976.

The allegation in the petition that the petitioner was himself handling the hawser aboard the tug at the time of the accident is not incompatible with limitation of liability. “Privity and knowledge” is a term of art meaning complicity in the fault that caused the accident, and if the petitioner is free from fault his actual knowledge of the facts of the accident does not prevent limitation. The 84-H, 2 Cir., 296 F. 427, certiorari denied 264 U.S. 596, 44 S.Ct. 454, 68 L.Ed. 867; 3 Benedict on Admiralty § 489 (6th Ed.1940). Of course petitioner must establish such facts at trial.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bensch v. Estate of Umar
2 F.4th 70 (Second Circuit, 2021)
In re Treanor
144 F. Supp. 3d 381 (E.D. New York, 2015)
Crowley v. Costa
924 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
Haney v. MILLER'S LAUNCH, INC.
773 F. Supp. 2d 280 (E.D. New York, 2010)
In Re Complaint of Messina
574 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2009)
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit
373 F.2d 860 (Second Circuit, 1967)
In re the United States Dredging Corp.
213 F. Supp. 780 (E.D. New York, 1963)
Dahlen v. Kramer Machine & Engineering Products Co.
303 F.2d 293 (Tenth Circuit, 1961)
Petition of Sause Bros. Ocean Towing Co.
193 F. Supp. 14 (D. Oregon, 1960)
In Re Landi's Petition
194 F. Supp. 353 (S.D. New York, 1960)
Landi v. The S.S. M. J. Derby II
194 F. Supp. 353 (S.D. New York, 1960)
In Re Reading's Petition
169 F. Supp. 165 (N.D. New York, 1958)
Blackler v. Jacobus Transportation Co.
243 F.2d 733 (Second Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 F.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackler-v-f-jacobus-transportation-co-ca2-1957.