United States v. TERRY E. BUCHANAN, ETC.
Decision Date | 20 February 1956 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Libelant, v. THE Tug TERRY E. BUCHANAN, THE Barges WILLIAM C. DIEROLF, THE POINTLIGHT and THE WELFARELIGHT, their engines, tackle, etc., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., New York City, for libelant, by Walter L. Hopkins, New York City, Trial Atty.
Purdy, Lamb & Catoggio, New York City, appearing specially for Barge William C. Dierolf.
The United States has brought this action in rem against a tug and three barges which were under the control of the tug alleging that they violated Title 33 U.S.C.A. § 408, and Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, § 70.05-1. These statutes provide, inter alia, that it shall be unlawful to obstruct any navigational aid by fastening a vessel thereto. The libel alleges that the tug fastened these three barges to a navigational buoy placed in the entrance of Port Chester Harbor, and that before casting off, all four vessels were swinging from the buoy. It alleges that all four, therefore, are guilty of violating the above statutes and that they are each individually and separately liable in rem for the pecuniary penalties set forth in 33 U.S. C.A. §§ 411 and 412, and 33 C.F.R. §§ 70.05-5 and 70.05-15, which provide in part:
The owners of the Barge William C. Dierolf have excepted to the libel insofar as it asserts liability against the barges; they assert that these were "dumb barges" under the dominance and control of the tug, and that they could not be guilty of the violation in question. As authority for this contention, respondents cite many cases in support of the well-established proposition that a dumb barge, or any other tow completely controlled by its tug, cannot be held liable in rem for damages caused by collision between the barge and another vessel or other structure. E. g. The Margaret, 1876, 94 U.S. 494, 24 L.Ed. 146; The Margaret Irving, 2 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 230; Cranberry Creek Coal Co. v. Red Star Towing & Transportation Co., 2 Cir., 33 F.2d 272, certiorari denied New York Marine Co. v. Cranberry Creek Coal Co., 1929, 280 U.S. 596, 50 S.Ct. 67, 74 L.Ed. 643; The J. L. Miner, 6 Cir., 1919, 260 F. 901. I find these cases to be inapposite here, however, in that they all involved situations where culpable negligence or intent was necessary for recovery, and such is not the case insofar as these statutes are concerned.
These statutes impose a pecuniary penalty against any vessel or other craft "used or employed" in a violation of the law, and the courts have construed this to impose a strict liability in rem upon such craft regardless of the negligence or intent of the owners or masters. The vessel is considered as the offender, and the mere fact that it was used in violating the statute is sufficient to impose the liability. In United States v. The Republic No. 2, D.C.S.D. Tex.1946, 64 F.Supp. 373, a libel was brought against a tug and three barges for injuries done to guide walls designed to aid vessels passing through certain flood gates. The Court found that there was no negligence on the part of either the tugs or barges, but held that the libel was properly brought under 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 408 and 412, and the statutory penalties were assessed. Similarly, statutes prohibiting the dumping of refuse into harbors have been held to impose liability regardless of negligence or intent on the part of the ship's owner or master. In The Colombo, 2 Cir., 1930, 42 F.2d 211, a ship had leaked oil into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni
...1, 1906); United States v. The Martin, 198 F.Supp. 171 (D.C.Ill., 1961), aff'd 313 F.2d 851 (C.A. 7, 1963); United States v. The Terry E. Buchanan, 138 F.Supp. 754 (D.C.N.Y., 1956); The Gansfjord, 25 F.2d 736 (C.A. 5, 53 This is in harmony with the prevailing "American rule", that goes agai......
-
United States v. M/V BIG SAM
...relate to 33 U.S.C. §§ 407 and 412 and are civil rather than criminal. As plainly noted in United States v. The TERRY E. BUCHANAN, Etc., 138 F.Supp. 754, 755-756 (S.D.N.Y.1956): Statutes prohibiting the dumping of refuse into harbors have been held to impose liability regardless of negligen......
-
United States v. Tug Sundial
...also ruled that the United States may pursue civil penalties against a vessel that violates § 408[,]” citing United States v. The Terry E. Buchanan, 138 F.Supp. 754 (S.D.N.Y.1956) and United States v. The M/V Martin, 198 F.Supp. 171 (S.D.Ill.1961). (Opp'n Mot. at 14.) In Buchanan, the Unite......
-
In re Midland Enterprises, Inc.
...shown); United States v. The Republic, 64 F.Supp. 373 (S.D.Tex., 1946) (in rem—no negligence shown); United States v. The Terry E. Buchanan, 138 F.Supp. 754 (S.D.N.Y., 1956) (in rem— no negligence Strangely enough, the question whether a liability under 408 is limitable under the Statute of......