Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, and Detroit & MacKenac Railway Company v. Oglebay Norton Company, Libelant-Appellee

262 F.2d 103, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406, 1961 A.M.C. 1063
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedDecember 16, 1958
Docket13542_1
StatusPublished

This text of 262 F.2d 103 (Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, and Detroit & MacKenac Railway Company v. Oglebay Norton Company, Libelant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, and Detroit & MacKenac Railway Company v. Oglebay Norton Company, Libelant-Appellee, 262 F.2d 103, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406, 1961 A.M.C. 1063 (6th Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent-appellant railway companies, co-owners of the railway bridge at Bay City, Michigan, have appealed from a decree which divided equally between the libelant-appellee (owner of the Steamer Carrollton) and the respondents damages resultant from a collision on May 13, 1956, of the Carrollton with a buoy in the Saginaw River in Michigan.

The United States District Coux't found that the failure of the respondent carriers to keep a proper lookout from the bx’idge for approaching vessels and to give timely signal to the Carrollton that the bridge would not be open proximately caused and contributed to the striking of the buoy by the Carrollton and to her resultant disability and damages. The court found, also, that the failure of the Steamer and its operators to take any effective measures earlier than were taken to x'educe her speed, upon observance that the bridge was closed, proximately caused and contributed to the Carrollton’s striking of the buoy and to her disability and consequent damages.

It appears from the clear and logical reasoning of United States District Judge Paul Jones in his opinion and from his findings of fact and conclusions of law that his judgment was correct, both upon the basis of the entire evidence in the case and upon the applicable Admiralty law.

The judgment of the district court is, accordingly, affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 F.2d 103, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406, 1961 A.M.C. 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-ohio-railway-company-and-detroit-mackenac-railway-company-ca6-1958.