Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transportation Co., 291
Decision Date | 29 April 1957 |
Docket Number | Docket 24478.,No. 291,291 |
Citation | 243 F.2d 733 |
Parties | Stephen F. BLACKLER, doing business as Bay Towing Company, owner of THE Tug D. T. L. NO. 1, Petitioner-Appellee, v. F. JACOBUS TRANSPORTATION CO., Inc., and Frank S. Jacobus, Damage Claimants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Christopher E. Heckman, of Foley & Martin, New York City, for damage claimants-appellants.
Henry C. Eidenbach, of Hagen & Eidenbach, New York City (Richard A. Hagen, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, LUMBARD, Circuit Judge, and LEIBELL, District Judge.
We are already committed to the view that an appeal lies from refusal to dissolve an injunction entered in limitation proceedings enjoining the institution of suits and the prosecution of claims elsewhere than in these proceedings. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Gallotta, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 870; The Salvore, 2 Cir., 36 F.2d 712, certiorari denied United States Steel Products Co. v. Navigazione, etc., 287 U.S. 653, 53 S.Ct. 117, 77 L.Ed. 565. Appellants, two damage claimants, seek reversal of the district court's refusal to dismiss the tug owner's petition because it does not in terms allege his lack of privity and knowledge as to the accident. But the rather extensive petition does set forth the "facts and circumstances," as directed in Admiralty Rule 51 — which is the carefully drawn rule proposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, as shown by its Reports of Oct. 1-4, 1946, 23, 24, and Sept. 25-27, 1947, 21-25, following proposals of the Maritime Law Association of the United States, and which contains no requirement for the pleading of the legal conclusions desired of the court. There is nothing in the background of the rule — and no reason is disclosed — why admiralty practice should be more hypertechnical than ordinary procedure under the civil rules. See, e.g., Gins v. Mauser Plumbing Supply Co., 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 974, 976.
The allegation in the petition that the petitioner was himself handling the hawser aboard the tug at the time of the accident is not incompatible with limitation of liability. "Privity and knowledge" is a term of art meaning complicity in the fault that caused the accident, and if the petitioner is free from fault his actual knowledge of the facts of the accident does not prevent limitation. The 84-H, 2 Cir., 296 F. 427, certiorari denied 264 U.S. 596, 44 S.Ct. 454, 68...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Nagler
...in the fault that caused the accident." Messina, 574 F.3d at 126 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transp. Co. , 243 F.2d 733, 735 (2d Cir. 1957) ). Privity or knowledge "exist[s] where the owner has actual knowledge, or could have and should have obtained t......
-
Empire Seafoods, Inc. v. Anderson
...admiralty "`privity and knowledge' is a term of art meaning complicity in the fault that caused the accident," Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transp. Co., 2 Cir. 1957, 243 F.2d 733, 735. 5 The trial of this case was held on October 11-13, 1965. At that time the rules of procedure had not been unifi......
-
Pershing Auto Rentals, Inc. v. Gaffney
...F.2d 273, 1947 A.M.C. 51; A. C. Dodge, Inc. v. J. M. Carras, Inc., 2 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 911, 1955 A.M.C. 706; Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transp. Co., 2 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 733. The Third Circuit on the basis of these cases has followed suit. Petition of Oskar Tiedemann & Co., 3 Cir., 1958, 2......
-
Haney v. Miller's Launch Inc.
...“term of art meaning complicity in the fault that caused the accident.” See Messina, 574 F.3d at 126 (quoting Blackler v. F. Jacobus Transp. Co., 243 F.2d 733, 735 (2d Cir.1957)). In the case of a corporate owner, “liability may not be limited (where the negligence is that of an executive o......