Belcher Towing Co. v. Board of County Com'rs of Dade County
| Decision Date | 31 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--673,69--673 |
| Parties | BELCHER TOWING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, acting as the Dade County Port Authority, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Smathers & Thompson and G. Morton Good, Miami, for appellant.
Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle and Andrew Psalidas, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellee, Dade County Commissioners acting as the Dade County Port Authority, sued the appellant, Belcher Towing Company, for damage to a draw bridge. The damage occurred when a tug owned by the appellant took a tow through the draw. The trial judge entered extensive findings of fact, from which we quote:
'7. The major or predominant cause of the accident was faulty navigation on the part of the lead tug, which had permitted the dredge Windham to drift off course and into the west span of the draw bridge. The major fault lies with the tug Orr in that:
'(a) It is admitted that there were no unusual weather conditions prevailing.
Neither wind nor tide was a factor in causing the tow to drift off course. The conclusion is inescapable that the drift to the west was due to error in navigation on the part of the lead tug.
(b) The fact that the two had drifted westward, out of control, was not discovered by the captain of the Orr until he had already entered the cut, which indicates that he did not maintain a proper lookout, although he had a deckhand who was available for that purpose.
(c) The bridge had been opened to the fullest extent possible when the lead tug was 600 yards from the bridge, which gave her ample opportunity to steer a course that would take the convoy through the bridge. The decision to take the convoy through the bridge or not to do so rested at all times with the lead tug, which had sole responsibility for such decision.
(d) The evidence shows that there was no communication between the lead tug and the stern tug, nor was any effort made to coordinate their movements.'
On this appeal Belcher presents four points. Two of these question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion reached by the trial judge. Our examination of the record convinces us that the evidence amply supports the conclusion reached.
Appellant's fourth point urges that the trial judge erred in incorrectly applying the major-minor fault rule to the facts involved in the case. It is urged that appellee is precluded from the application of this rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petion v. State
...trial court's trained discretion to disregard prejudicial or improper evidence. Thereafter, in Belcher Towing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 233 So.2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), the Third District reiterated the distinction between a jury trial and a bench trial:We hold t......
-
Martin v. State
...error, relying on Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); and Belcher Towing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 233 So.2d 456 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). I cannot agree with the State's argument because I feel that a defendant has the same constitutional rights......
-
Pan American Aluminum Corp. v. Alinex Corporation, 72--903
...upon the rule stated in Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); Belcher Towing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 456. ...