Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin

Second Circuit

Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin

272 F.2d 192

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1959

DocketNo. 74, Docket 25582

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 192 (Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin) 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

Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin, 272 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find it unnecessary to supplement what is said in Judge Weinfeld’s excellent opinion on the subject of the fault of the Thirtle. We affirm the decree against the Dolphin on the ground of her statutory fault in passing the Thirtle despite the fact that she received no response to her signal for permission to pass. We agree with Judge Weinfeld that the Dolphin has not sustained the heavy burden of proving that this statutory violation “could not have contributed to the occurrence.” The Pennsylvania, 1873, 86 U.S. 125, 136, 22 L.Ed. 148; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Santiago, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 148, 150, note 7.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find it unnecessary to supplement what is said in Judge Weinfeld’s excellent opinion on the subject of the fault of the Thirtle. We affirm the decree against the Dolphin on the ground of her statutory fault in passing the Thirtle despite the fact that she received no response to her signal for permission to pass. We agree with Judge Weinfeld that the Dolphin has not sustained the heavy burden of proving that this statutory violation “could not have contributed to the occurrence.” The Pennsylvania, 1873, 86 U.S. 125, 136, 22 L.Ed. 148; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Santiago, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 148, 150, note 7.

Affirmed.

Esso Standard Oil Company, as Owner of the Esso Barge No. 21, Libelant-Cross-Appellant v. The President Garfield and American President Lines, Ltd., Claimant-Respondent-Appellant. American President Lines, Ltd., Cross-Libelant-Appellant v. The Esso New Hampshire and Esso Barge No. 21 and Esso Barge No. 17, and Esso Standard Oil Company, Cross-Respondent-Cross-Appellant

279 F.2d 540 (Second Circuit, 1960)

Esso Standard Oil Co. v. President Garfield

279 F.2d 540 (Second Circuit, 1960)

Sinclair Refining Company v. The Morania Dolphin

272 F.2d 192 (Second Circuit, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-refining-co-v-the-morania-dolphin-ca2-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack