W. W. Hobart, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Ray McClure Hobart, Deceased v. Sohio Petroleum Company

Fifth Circuit

W. W. Hobart, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Ray McClure Hobart, Deceased v. Sohio Petroleum Company

376 F.2d 1011, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377, 1968 A.M.C. 1154

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1967

Docket24091

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 376 F.2d 1011 (W. W. Hobart, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Ray McClure Hobart, Deceased v. Sohio Petroleum Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. W. Hobart, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Ray McClure Hobart, Deceased v. Sohio Petroleum Company, 376 F.2d 1011, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377, 1968 A.M.C. 1154 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs, appellants, sue as administrators for the alleged wrongful deaths of two young men, members of the crew of a crude oil tank barge. The complaint charged that the defendant, ap-pellee, Sohio Petroleum Company, was the shipper of a cargo of Wyoming Sour Crude Oil from a terminal at Hartford, Illinois, to its terminal at Mayersville, Mississippi, by barge owned by the decedents’ employer, Greenville Towing Company. The complaint further alleged that the shipment was inherently dangerous in that it contained hydrogen sulfide gas in toxic concentration; that Sohio knew of this inherently dangerous characteristic which was unknown to the decedents and to their employer, but that Sohio gave no warning of the danger. *1012 The complaint further charged that the decedents in the performance of their duties entered the hold of one of the barges, where they died as a result of Sohio’s failure to give warning.

The case was tried to the court without a jury. After a full trial, the court rendered an opinion which states the law and the facts in considerable detail, and which is reported in 255 F.Supp. at 972 to 980. The court held that, while Sohio gave no warning, it was under no duty to warn because the crude oil in the shipment was no more dangerous than ordinary crude oil. It further held that the plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proving that lack of warning was a proximate cause of the decedents’ deaths.

The principles of law are well stated in the opinion of the district court. The only substantial issues presented on this appeal are questions of fact. After a careful study of the record, we cannot set aside the findings of fact as clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

The judgment for the defendant Sohio on the complaint of each administrator is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs, appellants, sue as administrators for the alleged wrongful deaths of two young men, members of the crew of a crude oil tank barge. The complaint charged that the defendant, ap-pellee, Sohio Petroleum Company, was the shipper of a cargo of Wyoming Sour Crude Oil from a terminal at Hartford, Illinois, to its terminal at Mayersville, Mississippi, by barge owned by the decedents’ employer, Greenville Towing Company. The complaint further alleged that the shipment was inherently dangerous in that it contained hydrogen sulfide gas in toxic concentration; that Sohio knew of this inherently dangerous characteristic which was unknown to the decedents and to their employer, but that Sohio gave no warning of the danger. *1012 The complaint further charged that the decedents in the performance of their duties entered the hold of one of the barges, where they died as a result of Sohio’s failure to give warning.

The case was tried to the court without a jury. After a full trial, the court rendered an opinion which states the law and the facts in considerable detail, and which is reported in 255 F.Supp. at 972 to 980. The court held that, while Sohio gave no warning, it was under no duty to warn because the crude oil in the shipment was no more dangerous than ordinary crude oil. It further held that the plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proving that lack of warning was a proximate cause of the decedents’ deaths.

The principles of law are well stated in the opinion of the district court. The only substantial issues presented on this appeal are questions of fact. After a careful study of the record, we cannot set aside the findings of fact as clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

The judgment for the defendant Sohio on the complaint of each administrator is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 F.2d 1011, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377, 1968 A.M.C. 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-w-hobart-administrator-of-the-estate-of-kenneth-ray-mcclure-hobart-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack