The America
| Citation | 174 F. 724 |
| Parties | THE AMERICA. |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1910 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Syllabus by the Judge
Seaworthiness of a boat sinking without apparent cause. Where it appeared that the boat was actually seaworthy, the presumption of unseaworthiness from the sinking held to be overcome.
Kneeland & Harison, for libellant.
Foley Martin & Nelson, for claimant.
The Bush Terminal Company claims in its libel that the steam lighter America was under charter to it on or about the 1st day of April, 1906, and while loaded with a cargo of coffee staves, etc., which had been delivered to the libellant for carriage, she sank at a pier to which she was moored by reason of unseaworthiness. The owner of the coffee has assigned its claim to the libellant, amounting to $2,415.26 and the libellant has become liable on other cargo, to the extent of $1,203.53.
The answer of the claimant admits the charter, the sinking and loss or damage to cargo, and further alleges:
'Eighth: That the said steam lighter was under charter to the libellant herein, and that at the inception of the charter and delivery to the libellant and at all of the times during continuance of the charter of the said vessel by the libellant, the said steam lighter 'America' was in every respect tight, staunch, strong and seaworthy, and properly manned and equipped, and said steam lighter was inspected and kept in good repair and condition at all of the time during the continuance of said charter.
That said vessel, on or about the 31st day of March, 1906, took on board a small cargo of staves and general merchandise, and proceeded to Pier 3, Bush's Stores, Brooklyn, New York, to discharge the same; that by and under the order of an agent or servant of the libellant, the said steam lighter was placed alongside of the north side of Pier 3 at Bush's Stores, and that thereupon the libellant, through its agents and servants started to unload the said vessel; that the said vessel was properly moored, and at all of the time that she lay at said pier was sufficiently manned by competent men.
That while lying alongside of said dock aforesaid, and during the night of April 1, 1906, or in the early morning hours of April 2, 1906, the said lighter sunk at the pier aforesaid; that said sinking was not caused by any unseaworthiness of said vessel, and that the cause of the sinking is unknown to the claimant.
That the said sinking was not caused by any fault, neglect or want of care on the part of the claimant, or fault, neglect or want of care on the part of the master or the crew of the said steam lighter 'America."
The testimony shows that the charter was a verbal one and under its terms the Bush Company was to have charge and custody of the boat at night and the owner, the Commercial Coal Company, was to provide a crew of five men to navigate the boat in the day time.
On the trial the libellant simply proved the sinking of the boat but gave no evidence as to the cause of the sinking.
The claimant gave some evidence as to a scar on the starboard side of the boat tending to show, as it claimed, that the boat had rested on a sunken spile or other obstruction and had thus been caused to list taking in water which caused the sinking. There was however no evidence of the existence of such a spile and the fact that the boat had lain through several tides without injury, disposes of such claim.
The case therefore may be regarded as one of unexplained sinking and it is to be determined whether the vessel is liable under the circumstances of the case. Of course if properly attributable to some defect in the boat which caused the disaster, she is liable.
It appears that the Coal Company heard that the Bush Company desired a boat of the character of this one and a representative of the former saw an agent of the latter with respect to it. He asked if the Bush Company needed a steam lighter and was told that it did. The terms were discussed the owner asking $1,800 per month, which the Bush Company declined to pay, but a charter was finally effected by which the price was to be $1,500 per month, the crew, to be furnished by the owner, to work 10 hours per day, and the Bush Company to take charge at night and load and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Molasses Corporation v. New York Tank Barge Corporation the No 73
......180; The Nordhvalen, supra, 6 F.2d at page 886. If the bailee fails it leaves the trier of fact free to draw an inference unfavorable to him upon the bailor's establishing the unexplained failure to deliver the goods safely. Southern Ry. v. Prescott, supra; cf. The America, D.C., 174 F. 724. . Whether we label this permissible inference with the equivocal term 'presumption' or consider merely that it is a rational inference from the facts proven, it does no more than require the bailee, if he would avoid the inference, to go forward with evidence ......
-
Erlbacher v. Republic Homes Corporation
......2d 883 886. If the bailee fails, it 263 F.2d 221 leaves the trier of fact free to draw an inference unfavorable to him upon the bailor\'s establishing the unexplained failure to deliver the goods safely. Southern Ry. Co. v. Prescott 240 U.S. 632, 36 S.Ct. 469, 60 L.Ed. 836, supra; cf. The America, D.C., 174 F. 724.". In Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 561, 564, the court very well stated the rule as follows:. "When a vessel is placed at a wharf or dock for storage and/or repairs, a bailment results for the mutual benefit of the owner of the vessel ......
-
OF NELSON & CO. v. United States, 10816.
......If the bailee fails it leaves the trier of fact free to draw an inference unfavorable to him upon the bailor's establishing the unexplained failure to deliver the goods safely. Southern Ry. Co. v. Prescott, supra 240 U.S. 632, 640, 36 S.Ct. 469, 60 L.Ed. 836; cf. The America, D.C., 174 F. 724." . To sustain its obligation so to go forward with the facts showing its absence of fault in the loss of the cargo, appellee has produced the depositions of two witnesses. At the hearing of the appeal, appellee supplemented its testimony with two frank admissions ......
-
Woodburn Brothers v. Erickson
......If the bailee fails it leaves the trier of fact free to draw an inference unfavorable to him upon the bailor's establishing the unexplained failure to deliver the goods safely. Southern Ry. Co. v. Prescott, supra 240 U.S. 632, 36 S.Ct. 469, 60 L.Ed. 836; cf. The America......