Akron Corp. v. M/T Cantigny

Decision Date31 May 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-3345,82-3345
PartiesAKRON CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M/T CANTIGNY, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., in rem, and Grand Bassa Tankers, Inc., in personam, Defendants-Appellees. VICTORY TRANSOCEAN SHIPPING, S.A. Rederi A/B Zenit, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. M/T CANTIGNY, in rem, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Gelpi, Sullivan, Carroll & LaBorde, Gerard T. Gelpi, Randall C. Coleman, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Terriberry, Carroll Yancey & Farrell, Alfred M. Farrell, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The M/T CANTIGNY grounded March 22, 1980 in the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River as it attempted to negotiate the sharp exit turn into the Gulf of Mexico. The vessel went aground at 10:14 p.m. approximately 21 miles below Head of Passes. The grounding effectively prevented other large vessels from passing this entry and exit point from the river. The owners and time charterers of vessels blocked upriver brought this action seeking to recover from the owners of the CANTIGNY damages caused by the delays which ensued. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis that this action is controlled by the authorities cited in Kingston Shipping Co., Inc. v. Roberts, 667 F.2d 34 (11th Cir.1982) as interpreted by that court. We affirm.

The CANTIGNY'S grounding prompted the United States Coast Guard to close the Southwest Pass from 5:30 p.m. March 24 to 8:10 a.m. March 28. During this time, the M/S AKRON was completing loading at the Mississippi River Grain Elevator at Myrtle Grove, Louisiana. The pilot became aware of the downriver blockage and headed upriver for the nearest anchorage. When the AKRON received notice March 28 that the Pass was clear for vessel traffic, it was too late in the day to obtain a pilot to take her through that day. The owners of the AKRON seek recovery for demurrage, additional fuel expenses, tug hire, pilot fees and expenses for the delay from 10:30 a.m. March 24, when it left the grain elevator, until 8:43 a.m. March 29, when it passed the elevator headed downriver. The owners and time charterers of the M/T THALASSINI DOXA seek delay damages for the period from 3:20 p.m. March 24, when the THALASSINI DOXA anchored at the 12-mile anchorage under the orders of the Coast Guard, until 8:15 p.m. March 29, when the vessel weighed anchor and headed for the Gulf.

In Kingston, the owners of vessels whose passage into or out of the Port of Tampa was delayed because a sunken vessel blocked the main ship channel of Tampa Bay sought delay damages. The eleventh circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suits for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Kingston court found the question to be governed by the rule of Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), and its Fifth Circuit progeny, Vicksburg Towing Co. v. Mississippi Marine Transport Co., 609 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.1980); Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. M/V Bayou Lacombe, 597 F.2d 469 (5th Cir.1979); Dick Meyers Towing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State of La. ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 11, 1985
    ...of Robins This Court's most recent extension of Robins, and one that is squarely on point with the present case, is Akron Corp. v. M/T Cantigny, 5 Cir.1983, 706 F.2d 151 reh'g denied, 5 Cir.1983, 711 F.2d 1054. In Akron, a ship grounded in the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River, blocki......
  • Ts & C Investments, L.L.C. v. Beusa Energy, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • February 2, 2009
    ...is to prevent limitless liability for negligence and the filing of lawsuits of a highly speculative nature. See Akron Corp. v. M/T Cantigny, 706 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.1983). See also PPG Industries, Inc., 447 So.2d at 1061-62 ("Rules of conduct are designed to protect some persons under so......
  • Getty Refining and Marketing Co. v. MT Fadi B, 84-1567
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 11, 1985
    ...circuits. The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have embraced the bright line rule. See, e.g., Akron Corp. v. M/T CANTIGNY, 706 F.2d 151 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 711 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir.1983); Kingston Shipping Co. v. Roberts, 667 F.2d 34 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U......
  • LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. (In re Am. Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 22, 2021
    ...harms is not unusual. Such limits on liability can be found, for example, in the economic loss rule, see Akron Corp. v. M/T Cantigny , 706 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1983) (noting that "a party may not recover for economic losses not associated with physical damages" so as "to prevent limitles......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT