O'Neil v. Steam Tug Bern

Second Circuit

O'Neil v. Steam Tug Bern

12 F.2d 1013, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, 1926 A.M.C. 1012

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1926

DocketNo. 362

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F.2d 1013 (O'Neil v. Steam Tug Bern) 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

O'Neil v. Steam Tug Bern, 12 F.2d 1013, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, 1926 A.M.C. 1012 (2d Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A recital and discussion of the very unusual facts of this ease would not illustrate any doubtful point of law.

The debatable point herein is one of proximate cause, and we hold that the tug No. 10 cannot be held to liability, unless it be found that her navigators ought to have apprehended, not only that her tow would be so caught on the drill as to stay there, but also that another tow a considerable distance astern would be unable to avoid so slight an obstruction (if it could be called one at all) as that afforded by the boat so strangely left alongside the drill. The presence of this boat was not a proximate and contributing cause of the damages recovered herein.

The decree below is modified, so as to discharge the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and, as modified, affirmed, with the costs of this court to the appellant owner of tug No. 10.

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

PER CURIAM.

A recital and discussion of the very unusual facts of this ease would not illustrate any doubtful point of law.

The debatable point herein is one of proximate cause, and we hold that the tug No. 10 cannot be held to liability, unless it be found that her navigators ought to have apprehended, not only that her tow would be so caught on the drill as to stay there, but also that another tow a considerable distance astern would be unable to avoid so slight an obstruction (if it could be called one at all) as that afforded by the boat so strangely left alongside the drill. The presence of this boat was not a proximate and contributing cause of the damages recovered herein.

The decree below is modified, so as to discharge the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and, as modified, affirmed, with the costs of this court to the appellant owner of tug No. 10.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F.2d 1013, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, 1926 A.M.C. 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneil-v-steam-tug-bern-ca2-1926.