P. Dougherty Co. v. United States. P. Dougherty Co. v. United States

207 F.2d 626
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedSeptember 30, 1953
Docket10665_1
StatusPublished
Cited by55 cases

This text of 207 F.2d 626 (P. Dougherty Co. v. United States. P. Dougherty Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
P. Dougherty Co. v. United States. P. Dougherty Co. v. United States, 207 F.2d 626 (3d Cir. 1953).

Opinions

KALODNER, Circuit Judge.

Cross-appeals were filed from an Interlocutory Decree of the District Court ordering the United States to pay to The P. Dougherty Company one-half of the [628]*628damages suffered by its barge, Harford, while in tow of the Coast Guard cutter Mohawk, in the course of a rescue operation at sea. The District Court’s Decree was based on its determination that both the Harford and the Mohawk were negligent.

Dougherty’s appeal is premised on its contention that the Harford was free of negligence and that the Mohawk’s negligence was the sole cause of her damage.

The United States in its appeal contends (1) the negligent steering of the Harford was the principal cause of the accident and she was solely at fault; (2) it is not liable for negligence of the Coast Guard in a rescue operation; (3) even assuming such liability exists, the standard is “gross negligence” or “wilful misconduct” and not “ordinary” or “simple” negligence as was held by the District Court; (4) the “Good Samaritan” doctrine was erroneously applied by the District Court.

It may be noted that the District Court’s Findings of Fact1 with reference to the sequence of events which led to this litigation are not seriously disputed.

The salient facts, evidenced by the record, are as follows:

The Harford was a wooden coast-wise barge, 267 feet long by 46 feet wide without motive power of her own, but equipped with steering gear. Her crew consisted of a master and two ordinary seamen.

On the early morning of April 22,1947, in stormy weather and rough seas, the Harford was cast adrift and damaged in collision with another barge while in the tow of the tug Barlow off the Delaware coast. At the request of the Barlow2 the Coast Guard Station at Cape May, New Jersey, ordered the Mohawk to proceed to the Harford. The Mohawk reached the Harford on the early evening of April 22d. At about 6 a. m. on the morning of April 23d, the Mohawk received instructions from the Coast Guard base at Cape May to tow the Har-ford to the Harbor of Refuge.

Following several hours delay due to the fact that the Harford had considerable difficulty in raising her port anchor, (her starboard anchor was unusable) the Mohawk got under way with the Harford in tow at 12:45 p. m. At that time the Mohawk sent a message to the Coast Guard Search and Rescue Center at Cape May advising that the Har-ford was unable to anchor and requesting a tug to take over the tow five miles from Overfalls Lightship, off the entrance of Delaware Bay. At 2:30 p. m. the Mohawk was advised that the tug Barlow was unable to take the barge in tow outside and was directed to proceed to the Harbor of Refuge. The Mohawk reached Overfalls Lightship in the evening.

For some time prior to the parting of the tug Barlow’s towing cable on April 22d the weather had been stormy with strong winds and rough seas. By the evening of April 23d, when the Mohawk reached Overfalls Lightship, the wind had somewhat abated and the weather was clear with reasonably good visibility. The tide was at flood in Delaware Bay, setting north and northeast at a speed of about one and one-half to two knots. In the vicinity of Overfalls Lightship the Mohawk shortened her towing hawser from 100 to 30 or 40 fathoms, and at about the same time the master of the Harford turned the wheel over to ordinary seaman Norman Hill while the master went below to work on the Harford’s pumps which had become clogged. The Mohawk and her tow passed abeam of Overfalls Lightship at 8:24 p. m.

The entrance to the Harbor of Refuge lies between Cape Henlopen on the south and the southerly tip of the Harbor of Refuge Breakwater on the north, a distance of about eight-tenths of a mile. The customary method of navigation for a vessel entering the harbor at flood tide with a tow is to hold close to Cape Hen-[629]*629lopen leaving the obstruction buoys and sand bar close aboard on the port hand. This method is followed because of the strong northerly set of the flood current toward the Breakwater; it is necessary to allow ample clearance of the Breakwater to avoid being set on it by the flood current. The Mohawk originally set a course midway between Cape Henlopen and the Breakwater, but some time after passing Overfalls Lightship those in charge of the Mohawk sighted a vessel at anchor inside the Harbor of Refuge in a position which, they believed, made it necessary to alter the course of the Mohawk so as to pass between the anchored vessel and the end of the Breakwater to the north. The new course lay appreciably closer to the Breakwater than had at first been planned.

At 8:28 p. m. the Mohawk reduced her engine speed from 65 r. p. m. to 55 r. p. m., and at 8:41 p. m. further reduced it to 45 r. p. m. This action was taken apparently in the belief that both of the Harford’s anchors were unusable and that therefore it would be necessary to circle around the anchored vessel inside the Harbor of Refuge until the Barlow or some other tug could come alongside and take the Harford in tow. The slow speed was thought necessary to make the circling maneuver safe. It soon became apparent, however, that the Mohawk was being carried off her course to the north, that is to the right. Several substantial changes of course to port were made, with little or no effect, and at approximately 8:57 p. m. several increases in speed were made in quick succession. The Harford, meanwhile, as the Mohawk came close to the entrance to the harbor, began to steer a course to the right, thus accentuating the effect of the current and wind upon the Mohawk. During the last fifty yards from the Breakwater the Har-ford went off on a more or less northerly course. The Mohawk lost steerageway, and at 9:00 p. m. her starboard side struck the end of the Breakwater. The commanding officer of the Mohawk ordered the towing hawser cut, and the Mohawk moved away from the Breakwater, apparently undamaged. The Har-ford, cast adrift while still outside the Harbor of Refuge Breakwater, swung starboard side to the Breakwater and for forty-five minutes pounded against the large irregular stones of which the Breakwater was constructed. Another tug, the Jack, whose services had been secured that afternoon by Dougherty, without the knowledge of the Mohawk, then removed the Harford from the Breakwater and towed her northerly through Delaware Bay and River until the Harford’s leakage became so bad as to cause her to be in danger of sinking. Thereupon the Jack beached the Harford on the sandy bottom at Joe Flogger shoal from which she was subsequently floated and towed to Hampton Roads. This beaching and subsequent towage did not increase the damage to the Harford.

On the facts as stated the District Court made the fact finding that (1) the Mohawk had been negligent in navigating too close to the Breakwater; (2) the Harford had been steered in a negligent manner in that it had failed to follow the Mohawk; and (3) the negligence of both vessels had been proximate causes of the accident.

With respect to the last-mentioned finding, it is well-settled that the ultimate finding as to liability-creating fault is but a legal inference from other facts.3

It must immediately be noted that we accept, for reasons subsequently stated, the District Court’s findings of fact that both the Mohawk and Harford were negligent.

We further subscribe to the District Court’s determination that the negligence of the Harford made her liable.

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

Related

Starr International Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank
906 F. Supp. 2d 202 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Maritrans Operating Partners L.P. v. M/T Faith I
800 F. Supp. 133 (D. New Jersey, 1992)
Hood v. United States
695 F. Supp. 237 (E.D. Louisiana, 1988)
DFDS Seacruises (Bahamas) Ltd. v. United States
676 F. Supp. 1193 (S.D. Florida, 1987)
A.F.A. Tanker Corp. v. Reinauer Transportation Co.
594 F. Supp. 598 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Jacob Dick v. United States
671 F.2d 724 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Philtankers, Inc. v. M/V DON CARLOS
526 F. Supp. 34 (S.D. Texas, 1981)
O'SHAUGHNESSY v. Besse
389 N.E.2d 1049 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
Hogge v. SS YORKMAR
434 F. Supp. 715 (D. Maryland, 1977)
Complaint of Tug Helen B. Moran, Inc.
420 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D. New York, 1976)
Dreher v. United States
375 F. Supp. 1061 (N.D. California, 1972)
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad v. Motorship Buko Maru
348 F. Supp. 549 (N.D. Illinois, 1972)
In Re Great Lakes Towing Company
348 F. Supp. 549 (N.D. Illinois, 1972)
Afran Transport Company v. United States
309 F. Supp. 650 (S.D. New York, 1969)
American Independent Oil Co. v. M. S. Alkaid
289 F. Supp. 329 (S.D. New York, 1967)
Barrett Line v. Alamo Chemical Transportation Co.
271 F. Supp. 482 (W.D. Louisiana, 1967)
United States v. Sandra & Dennis Fishing Corp.
372 F.2d 189 (First Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 F.2d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-dougherty-co-v-united-states-p-dougherty-co-v-united-states-ca3-1953.