F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States

175 F. Supp. 180, 146 Ct. Cl. 629, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 175
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 15, 1959
DocketCong. No. 15-55
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 F. Supp. 180 (F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States, 175 F. Supp. 180, 146 Ct. Cl. 629, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 175 (cc 1959).

Opinion

Danaher, Oircuit Judge,

sitting by designation, delivered the opinion of the court:

This case is before the court pursuant to House Resolution 287, July 19, 1955, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., referring a bill, H.R. 6982 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1492 and § 2509. At issue are the plaintiff’s claims to damages resulting from the collapse of the plaintiff’s bulkhead, allegedly because of excessive dredging conducted in behalf of the Navy Department. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2509, the court is charged with the duty of reporting “conclusions sufficient to inform Congress whether the demand is a legal or equitable claim or a gratuity, and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the claimant.”

Plaintiff argues in support of its “equitable”1 claim that when the Commissioner concluded that the bulkhead was in “deteriorated” condition at the time of its collapse on June 28, 1946, he failed to take into consideration that the bulkhead and the upland property had been used by the United States Navy during the period from June 10,1943, to August 2,1945.

Plaintiff argues in support of its “legal”2 claim that the dredging operations and the deepening of Wallabout Channel were the efficient cause of the collapse of the bulkhead [631]*631and that the plaintiff had not been given any notice of the nature and extent of the dredging operations.

Plaintiff, a New York corporation with an office and place of business in Brooklyn, is the owner of a certain bulkhead and dock fronting on the east side of Wallabout Bay and Channel in the harbor of New York. On March 28, 1945, the District Engineer for the New York District issued a War Department permit authorizing dredging to a depth of some 38 feet below mean low water in Wallabout Channel at the United States Navy Yard in Brooklyn. The permit was issued pursuant to section 10 of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1151, 33 U.S.C. § 403. The Navy Department negotiated a contract for the authorized dredging with an independent contractor. Plaintiff alleged that the dredging was excessive and that the deepening of Wall-about Channel undercut the subsurface fill of the bulkhead of plaintiff’s property so that the piling was undermined. As a result, plaintiff alleged, a section of plaintiff’s bulkhead, approximately 310 feet in length, collapsed on June 28,1946. Plaintiff accordingly claimed damages of $157,699.

It is clear we do not here have a taking for which compensation might be provided, indeed no taking is alleged.3

Bather, the record comes down to this: the Navy Department pursuant to approved plans contracted for dredging navigable waters adjacent to the Navy Yard piers some 280 feet across the channel from plaintiff’s bulkhead. The work was necessary to permit a depth of about 38 feet to facilitate the berthing of naval vessels, including the large carrier, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Dredging operations were conducted between March 29, 1945, and April 21, 1945, when dredging terminated. Fourteen months later a section of the plaintiff’s bulkhead, about 50 years old, collapsed. The bulkhead was inherently weak. There were no transverse or bracing pilings. The bulkhead was not anchored by tiebacks to the mainland to guard against lateral thrust. On the outer edge of the bulkhead there had been erected a concrete seawall exerting a weight pressure of about 950 pounds per square foot. New York authorities in issuing a repair [632]*632permit in 1940 had provided there was to be no commercial ■use and no surcharge.4 Yet after the dredging, it was undisputed, plaintiff, in violation of the permit, had stored beer trucks, beams, concrete forms and other construction materials on the upland adjacent to and abreast of the later collapsed section, and had otherwise utilized the bulkhead for commercial purposes, including water transportation activities.

Meanwhile, in January 1946, some six months before the collapse, plaintiff commenced construction of a steel frame bottling shop, about 110 feet distant from the bulkhead at the southerly end and 200 feet at the northern end. Excavations for the basement were made by power shovel. Then no less than 1,126 concrete pilings were installed by a steam hammer. Casings were driven down to a depth df 11% feet, concrete was poured, and the casings were capped with concrete. While experts differed as to the extent such operations caused vibration in the subsoil back of and under the bulkhead, it cannot be controverted that the plaintiff wholly failed to show that the conduct of the defendant was, as plaintiff had alleged, the “efficient” cause of the bulkhead’s collapse, at 12:55 a.m. on June 28,1946.

It is not unreasonable to infer that the collapse was occasioned by a combination of factors, including the inherent weakness of the old structure, its inevitable deterioration at the water edge, and its misuse by the addition of surcharge burdens it was not constructed to bear. At what point or to what extent the steam hammer installation of 1,126 concrete pilings played a part, we can but speculate. It is not suggested that any other waterside structure suffered in any manner. The dredging had simply increased the depth by some twelve to fifteen feet.

There is no evidence that the Navy’s use of the plaintiff’s property, which terminated on August 2, 1945, contributed to the collapse of the bulkhead on June 28, 1946. Nor were we shown whether or not plaintiff took a tax loss for the year 1946 in the amount of $70,635, the low bid for the repair of [633]*633the bulkhead, including an allowance of 10% of that amount for improvements. Instead, the plaintiff reconstructed the bulkhead with the substitution of steel sheet piling at an actual cost of $138,738.09. Other items of engineering and comparable charges made up the difference to the total of plaintiff’s claim.

The court concludes that the planitiff has failed to sustain its burden of showing either equitable or legal ground for relief.

We have considered the exceptions5 submitted by the respective parties, but perceive no occasion to differ from the findings which will follow, to be certified to the Congress pursuant to the House Eesolution 287, supra.

Laramore, Judge; MaddeN, Judge; Whitaker, Judge, and JoNes, Chief Judge, concur.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The court, having considered the evidence, the report of Trial Commissioner Currell Yance, and the briefs and arguments of counsel, makes findings of fact as follows:

1. Plaintiff, The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and is a citizen of the United States.

2. Plaintiff is the owner of real property situated in the Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings, City and State of New York, fronting on the east side of Wallabout Bay and Channel. This property is known as the Kent Street property and extends from the north side of Division Avenue to the south side of South Eighth Street.

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

Related

Paul v. United States
20 Cl. Ct. 236 (Court of Claims, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 F. Supp. 180, 146 Ct. Cl. 629, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-m-schaefer-brewing-co-v-united-states-cc-1959.