Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin

272 F.2d 192
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 11, 1959·No. No. 74, Docket 25582·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

272 F.2d 192 (Sinclair Refining Co. v. The Morania Dolphin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related