Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

Second Circuit

Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

47 F.2d 172, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3420, 1931 A.M.C. 312

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 1931

Docket125, 145, 146

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 47 F.2d 172 (Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. 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

Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 47 F.2d 172, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3420, 1931 A.M.C. 312 (2d Cir. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

CHASE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

Although the evidence is rather meager, the conclusion is inescapable that the Margaret G did, when she sank, slide out under the dredge, and, by hitting the spud, do the damage occasioned the dredge. The Mercer tied her up Sunday morning. We may assume that her leaking condition made this ■necessary, but, of course, there was no immediate danger of her then sinking, and the *174 Mercer had ample time to fulfill whatever may ■have been its duty to give her á safe berth. ■ That she would probably sink if left to her • own devices m'ay be taken for granted, since that was why the Mercer moored her. Without knowing' or taking any steps to ascertain the nature of the bottom, the Mercer left the Margaret G to sink or float as 'the event might develop without any aid from the tug whatever.

When the Mercer took her out of the tow to moor because of her leaking condition, the tug was bound to exercise the skill and care a prudent navigator would employ in like circumstances, for the bailment continued until the service contracted for was performed of performance excused. Doherty v. Penn R. Co. (C. C. A.) 269 F. 959; The W. H. Baldwin (C. C. A.) 271 F. 411; Maryland Transportation Co. v. Dempsey (C. C: A.) 279 P. 94. The duty the Mercer owed the Margaret G was not fulfilled by tying her up and leaving her to' sink unless reasonable pare would not -have prevented her sinking at all. So, before we heed consider the choice of a berth,-we may well inquire whether the Mercer was justified in abandoning the.coal boat at any'berth.

Certainly, abandonment to sink at the pier, before all reasonable efforts to keep her afloat were exhausted, was a breach of duty imposed by law, The Joseph P. Clinton (C. C. A.) 250 F. 977, and the burden is on the tug to show that' no reasonable effort on her part would ‘have -'kept the coal boat afloat, Appeal of Cahill (C. C. A.) 124 F. 63. As to that the record is silent. We know, however, that water was gaining on the coal boat’s pump. This plainly indicated her sinking unless aid was obtained. We know her pump was in the bow,' and, of course, grounding her bow had no effect to prevent whatever surplus water came in from running aft, no matter where the leak was located. This would put it beyond the reach of the pump, and the stern would inevitably get lower and lower. We know that she remained afloat . for.¡over.twelve hours. Had the Mercer stood by and used her syphon, it cannot be taken for granted-that the Margaret G would have gone down, and" so it was incumbent upon the tug, the sinking hayingbeen prove/l, to proye that it was not caused -by her negligence. 1

It is true that there is no evidence that • the Margaret G was seaworthy when taken in tow or to show what caused the leaking .-or' just when it began. If it be assumed for the argument, however, that she was unseaworthy when the voyage' began, the tug is, nevertheless, liable for any loss attributable solely to its failure to exercise due care to save the boat and cargo from that damage which it could have prevented by taking reasonable and prudent action to. protect the boat and cargo from sinking from whatever cause. McCormick v. Jarrett (D. C.) 37 F. 380. See The M. J. Cummings (D. C.) 18 F. 178; The Jonty Jenks (D. C.) 54 F. 1021. Nor was it shown that the captain of the Margaret G could have obtained assistance after being moored and abandoned or failed to do all within his power to prevent sinking. On the evidence, the Mercer is responsible for all the damage caused solely by the sinking of the coal boat.

Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Tug Mercer, etc., affirmed. Peerless Coal Co., Inc., v. Tugs, etc., reversed. Walling v. Tugs, etc., reversed.

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

CHASE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

Although the evidence is rather meager, the conclusion is inescapable that the Margaret G did, when she sank, slide out under the dredge, and, by hitting the spud, do the damage occasioned the dredge. The Mercer tied her up Sunday morning. We may assume that her leaking condition made this ■necessary, but, of course, there was no immediate danger of her then sinking, and the *174 Mercer had ample time to fulfill whatever may ■have been its duty to give her á safe berth. ■ That she would probably sink if left to her • own devices m'ay be taken for granted, since that was why the Mercer moored her. Without knowing' or taking any steps to ascertain the nature of the bottom, the Mercer left the Margaret G to sink or float as 'the event might develop without any aid from the tug whatever.

When the Mercer took her out of the tow to moor because of her leaking condition, the tug was bound to exercise the skill and care a prudent navigator would employ in like circumstances, for the bailment continued until the service contracted for was performed of performance excused. Doherty v. Penn R. Co. (C. C. A.) 269 F. 959; The W. H. Baldwin (C. C. A.) 271 F. 411; Maryland Transportation Co. v. Dempsey (C. C: A.) 279 P. 94. The duty the Mercer owed the Margaret G was not fulfilled by tying her up and leaving her to' sink unless reasonable pare would not -have prevented her sinking at all. So, before we heed consider the choice of a berth,-we may well inquire whether the Mercer was justified in abandoning the.coal boat at any'berth.

Certainly, abandonment to sink at the pier, before all reasonable efforts to keep her afloat were exhausted, was a breach of duty imposed by law, The Joseph P. Clinton (C. C. A.) 250 F. 977, and the burden is on the tug to show that' no reasonable effort on her part would ‘have -'kept the coal boat afloat, Appeal of Cahill (C. C. A.) 124 F. 63. As to that the record is silent. We know, however, that water was gaining on the coal boat’s pump. This plainly indicated her sinking unless aid was obtained. We know her pump was in the bow,' and, of course, grounding her bow had no effect to prevent whatever surplus water came in from running aft, no matter where the leak was located. This would put it beyond the reach of the pump, and the stern would inevitably get lower and lower. We know that she remained afloat . for.¡over.twelve hours. Had the Mercer stood by and used her syphon, it cannot be taken for granted-that the Margaret G would have gone down, and" so it was incumbent upon the tug, the sinking hayingbeen prove/l, to proye that it was not caused -by her negligence. 1

It is true that there is no evidence that • the Margaret G was seaworthy when taken in tow or to show what caused the leaking .-or' just when it began. If it be assumed for the argument, however, that she was unseaworthy when the voyage' began, the tug is, nevertheless, liable for any loss attributable solely to its failure to exercise due care to save the boat and cargo from that damage which it could have prevented by taking reasonable and prudent action to. protect the boat and cargo from sinking from whatever cause. McCormick v. Jarrett (D. C.) 37 F. 380. See The M. J. Cummings (D. C.) 18 F. 178; The Jonty Jenks (D. C.) 54 F. 1021. Nor was it shown that the captain of the Margaret G could have obtained assistance after being moored and abandoned or failed to do all within his power to prevent sinking. On the evidence, the Mercer is responsible for all the damage caused solely by the sinking of the coal boat.

Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Tug Mercer, etc., affirmed. Peerless Coal Co., Inc., v. Tugs, etc., reversed. Walling v. Tugs, etc., reversed.

Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, S.A., as Owner of the Motor Vessel El Salvador, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner- Appellant-Appellee. Petition of McAllister Brothers, Inc., as Owner of the Tug Russell No. 18 for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner-Appellee-Appellant

364 F.2d 118 (Second Circuit, 1966)

Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey v. Tug Marie J. Turecamo

238 F. Supp. 145 (E.D. New York, 1965)

Petitions of the Kinsman Transit Company, as Owner and Operator of the Steamer MacGilvray Shiras, and of Midland Steamship Line, Inc., as Owner and Operator of the Steamer Michael K. Tewksbury, Their Engines, Etc., for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, City of Buffalo, Claimant-Respondent-Appellant, Kelley Island New York Corporation, Claimants-Appellees

338 F.2d 708 (Second Circuit, 1964)

In re Kinsman Transit Co.

338 F.2d 708 (Second Circuit, 1964)

American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corp. v. Roen Steamship Co.

216 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1963)

Chemical Transporter, Inc. v. M. Turecamo, Inc.

290 F.2d 496 (Second Circuit, 1961)

River Terminals Corporation v. Southwestern Sugar and Molasses Company, Inc.

274 F.2d 36 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)

Gulf Wave Towing Co. v. Mitchell

176 F. Supp. 636 (E.D. Louisiana, 1959)

Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. River Terminals Corp.

153 F. Supp. 923 (E.D. Louisiana, 1957)

Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co.

144 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Louisiana, 1956)

Curtis Bay Towing Co. Of Virginia, Inc. v. Southern Lighterage Corp. The J. Alvah Clark. The Covered Wagon

200 F.2d 33 (Fourth Circuit, 1952)

Southern Lighterage Corp. v. Clark

103 F. Supp. 580 (E.D. Virginia, 1952)

Dwyer Lighterage, Inc. v. Christie Scow Corp.

96 F. Supp. 900 (E.D. New York, 1951)

F. E. Grauwiller Transp. Co. v. Exner Sand & Gravel Corp.

162 F.2d 90 (Second Circuit, 1947)

Thorne, Neale & Co. v. Reading Co.

87 F.2d 694 (Second Circuit, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 F.2d 172, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3420, 1931 A.M.C. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-du-bois-sons-co-v-pennsylvania-r-co-ca2-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack