Potter Transp. Co. v. Franks

Second Circuit

Potter Transp. Co. v. Franks

299 F. 319, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2579, 1924 A.M.C. 827

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 1924

DocketNo. 324

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 299 F. 319 (Potter Transp. Co. v. Franks) 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

Potter Transp. Co. v. Franks, 299 F. 319, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2579, 1924 A.M.C. 827 (2d Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Libelant’s barge was anchored wherever the Potter put her, and we agree with the court below that the chosen anchorage was proper, and the Potter therefore without fault.

The only question remaining is whether the Franks, moving across anchorage ground in a fog of remarkable density, and at the rate of [320]*3203 miles an hour, was at fault for collision with libelant’s anchored barge, when that barge was not ringing her bell in the manner prescribed by the Inland Rules.

For the barge it is urged that her failure to ring bells according to rule did not contribute to collision; but the rule of law is that a vessel infringing a positive regulation must affirmatively show that such violation did not contribute. The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125, 22 L. Ed. 148.

Thus far we agree with the court below, but think it was inadvertently further held that the Franks, although going-at a rate of speed which rendered it impossible for her to stop within the distance objects could be seen, was not liable because the anchored barge was not ringing a lawful bell. The contrary was held in The Raleigh (C. C.) 44 Fed. 781, The Etruria, 147 Fed. 216, 77 C. C. A. 442, and The Haven (C. C. A.) 277 Fed. 957.

Decree modified, to award libelant half damages; costs of this court to libelant, and costs here to the Potter also.

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

PER CURIAM.

Libelant’s barge was anchored wherever the Potter put her, and we agree with the court below that the chosen anchorage was proper, and the Potter therefore without fault.

The only question remaining is whether the Franks, moving across anchorage ground in a fog of remarkable density, and at the rate of [320]*3203 miles an hour, was at fault for collision with libelant’s anchored barge, when that barge was not ringing her bell in the manner prescribed by the Inland Rules.

For the barge it is urged that her failure to ring bells according to rule did not contribute to collision; but the rule of law is that a vessel infringing a positive regulation must affirmatively show that such violation did not contribute. The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125, 22 L. Ed. 148.

Thus far we agree with the court below, but think it was inadvertently further held that the Franks, although going-at a rate of speed which rendered it impossible for her to stop within the distance objects could be seen, was not liable because the anchored barge was not ringing a lawful bell. The contrary was held in The Raleigh (C. C.) 44 Fed. 781, The Etruria, 147 Fed. 216, 77 C. C. A. 442, and The Haven (C. C. A.) 277 Fed. 957.

Decree modified, to award libelant half damages; costs of this court to libelant, and costs here to the Potter also.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 F. 319, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2579, 1924 A.M.C. 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-transp-co-v-franks-ca2-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack