Monsanto Co. v. Edwards Towing Corp.

318 F. Supp. 13, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13841, 1970 A.M.C. 105
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJuly 10, 1969
DocketNo. 67A 237(1)
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 318 F. Supp. 13 (Monsanto Co. v. Edwards Towing Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Monsanto Co. v. Edwards Towing Corp., 318 F. Supp. 13, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13841, 1970 A.M.C. 105 (E.D. Mo. 1969).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HARPER, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff, Monsanto Company (hereinafter referred to as Monsanto), a Delaware corporation with its principal office in St. Louis, Missouri, brought this action in admiralty against the defendant, Edwards Towing Company (hereinafter referred to as Edwards), a Missouri corporation, seeking to recover for damages to its dock which it sustained on July 29, 1966, when its dock facility located on the Illinois side of the Mississippi River in the St. Louis Harbor was struck by four loaded barges (AGS-116, AGS-132, AGS-105 and AGS-114), which barges broke loose from the lower load fleet which was being operated by defendant Edwards.

Edwards filed its answer admitting the breakaway, but denying negligence on its part, and also filed a third-party complaint against Alter Towing Company (hereinafter referred to as Alter). Alter’s M/V BEVERLY ANN, approximately four hours prior to the breakaway, tied barges AGS-105 and AGS-115 in the Edwards’ fleet alongside barges AGS-116 and AGS-132. Edwards’ third-party complaint alleged that the crew of the M/V BEVERLY ANN were negligent in that they failed to adequately secure said barges when placed in the fleet and failed to inspect and strengthen the mooring of the barges in the fleet at the time it added the two barges.

Alter filed answer to the third-party complaint, admitting the breakaway, but denying any negligence on its part, and also filed a third-party complaint against Federal Barge Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Federal), the owner of the M/V MISSOURI, and alleged that the M/V MISSOURI passed the Edwards’ fleet immediately prior to the breakaway at an unreasonable speed and in close proximity thereto, causing the barges to break away from their mooring.

[15]*15Federal in its answer denied that the M/V MISSOURI passed the Edwards fleet at an unreasonable speed or so close to it as to contribute to the breakaway.

Prior to the trial all parties agreed that Monsanto suffered damages in the amount of $18,756.00.

This action was timely filed and this court has jurisdiction in admiralty. The facts are before the court by way of oral testimony, stipulation of facts, various exhibits and the answer to certain interrogatories.

The defendant Edwards operates a fleeting facility on the Illinois side of the upper Mississippi River below the MacArthur Bridge in the St. Louis area. The breakaway of the barges in question occurred about 3,000 feet below the MacArthur Bridge. Barges AGS-116 and AGS-132 had been moored by Edwards to the fleet barge on July 27, 1967. On July 29, 1967, at about 3:45 a. m. Central Standard Time, the M/V BEVERLY ANN operated by the Alter barge brought the two loaded barges AGS-105 and AGS-114 to the fleet and moored them to the outside of barges AGS-116 and AGS-132.

The testimony of the various witnesses varies considerably with respect to time, but this is explained by the fact that the BEVERLY ANN was operating on Central Standard Time, while the other witnesses were referring to Daylight Saving Time.

Somewhere around eight to eight-thirty o’clock a. m. on the morning of July 29th, the four barges in question broke loose from the fleet barge, the mooring between AGS-116 and the fleet barge being parted in the breakaway. The four barges in question floated down the river tied together, and struck the dock of Monsanto, causing the damage involved.

It has long been established that the burden is upon a drifting vessel to show her freedom from negligence. The Louisiana, 3 Wall. 164 (70 U.S.), 18 L.Ed. 85. The Supreme Court in The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186, 15 S.Ct. 804, 39 L.Ed. 943, held that there is a presumption, of fault when there is a collision with a vessel lying at anchor. The operator of a fleeting facility as a bailee has the responsibility of caring for barges after they are committed to its custody. Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., 314 U.S. 104, 62 S.Ct. 156, 86 L.Ed. 89. A breakaway establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the moving vessel. Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., supra; Mid-America Transportation v. St. Louis Barge Fleeting Service, Inc., 229 F.Supp. 409 (D.C.E.D.Mo.), aff'd 8 Cir., 348 F.2d 920; John I. Hay Co. v. The Allen B. Wood, D.C., 121 F. Supp. 704, aff'd Martin Oil Service v. John I. Hay Co., 5 Cir., 219 F.2d 237.

And so the facts in this case under the law are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence against Edwards.

The testimony discloses that shortly before the two Edwards barges were tied into the fleet, the crew of the M/V BARBARA BELLE, belonging to Edwards, checked the fleet. While Floyd Gibson, the pilot of the BARBARA BELLE, testified that he personally inspected the wires on the two barges and found them secured, he could not recall whether the wires were seven-eighths of an inch or three-fourths of an inch. He further testified that the Edwards pilots were informed that there was to be a rise in the river and that in a rising river slack should be taken out of the fleet wires. He further testified that a rise of 3.4 feet in the river would eventually wash the barges out unless the slack was taken out of the wires.

There was testimony to the effect that at four o’clock a. m. that morning there was a river forecast, which Robert Carroll, the pilot of the M/V BEVERLY ANN, heard on the radio, which forecast advised of a rather big rise in the river, and the evidence introduced in the record from the United States Corps of Engineers shows a 3.4 foot rise in the river in the twenty-four hour period [16]*16from July 28th to July 29th, but does not fix the time it occurred.

When a towboat disturbs a fleet of barges in order to moor a barge it is bound to properly fasten the barge it delivers. John I. Hay v. The Allen B. Wood, supra, and The Norwich Victory, D.C., 77 F.Supp. 264, aff'd United States v. Dump Scows No. 116, No. 120 and No. 122, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 556, cert. den. American Dredging Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 871, 70 S.Ct. 147, 94 L. Ed. 534.

Edwards instead of showing specific acts of negligence on the part of Alter’s M/V BEVERLY ANN, has relied upon the rule that where a motor vessel moors unmanned barges and a short time thereafter they are adrift, the drifting presumably establishes fault on the part of the mooring vessel, as set out in The Norwich Victory, supra.

There was no proof of negligence on the part of the mooring of the two barges by the M/V BEVERLY ANN to the other two barges in the fleet. The testimony discloses that they were properly moored to the other two barges, as is well illustrated by the fact that they drifted down the river moored together. The testimony further discloses that the crew of the M/V BEVERLY ANN inspected the mooring to the fleet barge when the two barges were moored to the fleet and found that it was proper.

The circumstances of this case rebut a presumption of fault on the part of the mooring by the M/V BEVERLY ANN of the two barges, as the circumstances in this case are far from normal.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
318 F. Supp. 13, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13841, 1970 A.M.C. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monsanto-co-v-edwards-towing-corp-moed-1969.