Utility Service Corp. v. Hillman Transportation Co.

142 F. Supp. 473, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3140
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 19, 1956
DocketNos. 261, 262
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 F. Supp. 473 (Utility Service Corp. v. Hillman Transportation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Utility Service Corp. v. Hillman Transportation Co., 142 F. Supp. 473, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3140 (W.D. Pa. 1956).

Opinion

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

These are actions in admiralty to recover for damages to marine equipment.

For purposes of brevity, the following abbreviations will be employed:

Harry Zubik ......“Zubik”

Hillman Transportation

Company ......“Hillman”

Utility Service Corporation... .“Utility”

Upon exhaustive non-jury trial, the following facts do not appear to be in dispute and/or are supported by the fair preponderance and weight of the credible evidence:

During the period including December 30, 1954, Utility was engaged in channel excavation in the vicinity of the Ems-worth Pool of the Ohio River. In connection therewith, Zubik located a derrick boat, and sand barge approximately 450 to 500 feet from the right downstream shoreline.

[474]*474On the early morning of December 30, 1954, Hillman was operating the M/V Mary Lee Hillman downstream with a flotilla of six steel hopper barges. When the pilot of the M/V Mary Lee Hillman was approximately one-half mile above the location of the Zubik equipment, he observed the towboat Vulcan proceeding upstream with her tow approximately 500 feet below the Zubik and Utility equipment. He also observed the piers of the McKees Rocks bridge located in the Ohio River approximately 500 feet below the Zubik equipment, and that the water speed was five to six miles per hour.

The evidence developed that at a point approximately 2,000 feet above the Zubik equipment, the pilot of the M/V Mary Lee Hillman had the election of proceeding to the left of the Zubik equipment, in which area a strong cross-river current was flowing, or stopping his tow to await the passage of the towboat Vulcan.

Notwithstanding these conditions, the M/V Mary Lee Hillman proceeded downstream, and by reason of her inability to reduce her downstream speed, the starboard side of her tow collided with the Zubik and Utility marine equipment.

Upon a most thorough review of the testimony and the exhibits, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, it is my considered judgment that Hillman was guilty of negligence in attempting to pass to the left of the Zubik and Utility equipment in view of the cross-current and proximity of the equipment. Hill-man’s contention that its pilot was unaware of the extent of the cross-current is without merit. A pilot must be familiar with all dangers that are permanently located in the course of the river, as sand bars, snags, sunken rocks or trees, or abandoned vessels or barges. All this he must know and remember and avoid. To do this he must be constantly informed of changes in the current of the river, of sand bars newly made, of logs, or snags, or other objects newly presented, against which his vessel might be injured. Davidson Steamship Co. v. United States, 205 U.S. 187, 194, 27 S. Ct. 480, 51 L.Ed. 764.

In the course of trial a protracted dispute arose as to the proper assessment for the damages sustained.

It is my judgment that Zubik is entitled to recover $13,951 and Utility $639.13.

The Court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. Utility Service Corporation, libellant in Admiralty Action No. 261, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and at all times herein material was authorized to transact business as a foreign corporation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maintaining a place of business at 1227 Shore Avenue, Pittsburgh 33, Pennsylvania.

2. Zubik, libellant in Admiralty Action No. 262, is an individual maintaining a principal place of business at 1227 Shore Avenue, Pittsburgh 33, Pennsylvania.

3. Hillman, respondent in Admiralty Actions Nos. 261 and 262, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maintaining a principal place of business in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

4. On December 30, 1954, Utility was engaged in the performance of a contract with Duquesne Light Company with respect to the excavation of a channel across the bed of the Ohio River at a point approximately 2.2 miles below the Point in the City of Pittsburgh, said channel connecting a point on Brunots Island, located on the left downstream side of the Ohio River, with a point on the right downstream side of the Ohio River near the foot of Island Avenue, North Side, City of Pittsburgh. The width of the Ohio River between said two points is approximately 900 feet.

5. On December 30, 1954, and at all other times herein material, Zubik was the owner of a steel hull, fully equipped derrick boat, an oil stern wheel towboat, [475]*475one 'steel hopper barge, one steel deck barge, each having dimensions of 100 feet in length, 26 feet in width, and 11 feet in depth, and one outboard motorboat, all of which marine equipment, including crew operators, was leased by Zubik to Utility on the following hourly and per diem basis, and employed by Utility in connection with the excavation of said river channel for the account of Duquesne Light Company:

$40.00 per hour Derrick boat

$13.00 per hour Tugboat

$20.00 per day Steel Deck barge

$20.00 per day Steel Hopper barge

$ 8.00 per day Outboard motorboat

6. On December 30, 1954, and at all other times herein material, the Zubik derrick boat and sand barge were being operated at a point in said river channel being excavated by Utility for the account of Duquesne Light Company approximately 450 to 500 feet from the right downstream shoreline of the Ohio River and approximately 250 to 300 feet from the left downstream shoreline of the Ohio River, said derrick boat being anchored at said point on the downstream side and said sand barge being anchored in a diagonal direction with the Ohio River at the upstream side of said derrick boat.

7. The channel excavation was being performed by Utility for the account of Duquesne Light Company under a permit issued by United States Corps of Engineers to the Duquesne Light Company authorizing the same to be done.

8. At all times herein- material the weather was clear and the visibility was good.

9. At all times herein material the Zubik derrick boat and sand barge and other equipment employed in the excavation of said river channel were properly lighted.

10. The normal Pittsburgh pool stage of 16% feet, under ordinary conditions, is maintained by manipulation of the movable gates at the Emsworth Dam in the Ohio River below the City of Pittsburgh and below the point of accident. The Ohio River began to rise on December 28; 1954 and the Emsworth Dam was being opened in order to release the increased volumes of water flowing in the river. At 8:20 P. M. on December 29, 1954 the gates had been opened approximately 65%. These openings were gradually increased so that by 12:01 A. M., approximately fifteen minutes before the accident, they had been opened to 90%.

11. As the gates at the Emsworth Dam were opened, the flow or current of the river was increased accordingly so that at the time of the accident the channel current in the river was flowing at the rate of from five to six miles per hour.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 F. Supp. 473, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utility-service-corp-v-hillman-transportation-co-pawd-1956.