Stillufsen v. American Dredging Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stillufsen v. American Dredging Co.

103 Misc. 2d 1003, 431 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2240

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 11, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 103 Misc. 2d 1003 (Stillufsen v. American Dredging Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stillufsen v. American Dredging Co., 103 Misc. 2d 1003, 431 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff sought to recover loss of earnings resulting from her inability to use her fishing trawler due to the closing of the Rockaway Inlet. The inlet was closed as a protective measure after defendant’s dredge had run aground and sunk, resulting in the spillage of 42,000 gallons of oil. At the trial it was undisputed that the dredge had run aground while in tow [1004]*1004and under the complete control of the tug Grace Moran. Since a vessel under tow is not responsible for injury to third parties in the absence of a showing that it contributed to the damage, and since the record is devoid of any indication that the defendant was negligent in some fashion, the plaintiff must look to the owners of the tugboat for any recovery (see 15 CJS, Collision, § 75, subd b; 70 Am Jur 2d, Shipping, § 588).

Concur: Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Hirsch, JJ.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff sought to recover loss of earnings resulting from her inability to use her fishing trawler due to the closing of the Rockaway Inlet. The inlet was closed as a protective measure after defendant’s dredge had run aground and sunk, resulting in the spillage of 42,000 gallons of oil. At the trial it was undisputed that the dredge had run aground while in tow [1004]*1004and under the complete control of the tug Grace Moran. Since a vessel under tow is not responsible for injury to third parties in the absence of a showing that it contributed to the damage, and since the record is devoid of any indication that the defendant was negligent in some fashion, the plaintiff must look to the owners of the tugboat for any recovery (see 15 CJS, Collision, § 75, subd b; 70 Am Jur 2d, Shipping, § 588).

Concur: Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Hirsch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 Misc. 2d 1003, 431 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillufsen-v-american-dredging-co-nyappterm-1980.