Federal Insurance v. M.T. "Sabine"
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
On the stipulated facts and an assessment of the testimony in the depositions, particularly that of Fred Oaks, and a study of the various product tests annexed to the Chodorowski deposition, I conclude that Oaks blundered by permitting further loading after the results of the 4 foot test were known, whether or not that test revealed a third and more serious cause of contamination, namely “lead” from gasoline in an adjacent tank. The product was already out of “spec” on the 2 foot test for color, and while further limited loading is a recognized practice to see if there is a dilution of what may be a small amount of left-over contaminant from a prior use of the tanks, here the second test at 4 feet, instead of showing a dilution of contaminant, showed that things got worse, i.e. in addition to the color, the “non-aromatics” weight percentage was out of “spec”. At this point I conclude that Oaks, CORCO’S representative in charge of the loading, and on notice of the worsening of the condition of the product, is to be faulted for not terminating the loading
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
587 F. Supp. 518 (Federal Insurance v. M.T. "Sabine") — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.