Cruse v. Sabine Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 8069.,8069. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
| Parties | CRUSE et al. v. SABINE TRANSP. CO., Inc. |
Thomas H. Middleton, of New York City, Samuel C. Lipscomb, M. G. Adams, and Steve M. King, all of Beaumont, Tex., and Robert B. Todd, Harry F. Stiles, Jr., and Richard B. Montgomery, Jr., all of New Orleans, La., for appellants.
M. A. Grace, Edwin H. Grace, Daniel H. Grace, and Milton C. Grace, all of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
The Sabine Transportation Company, Inc., owner of the tank steamship Rawleigh Warner, filed its petition in the District Court for limitation of liability, or exoneration therefrom, for damages caused by an explosion which occurred on board said vessel, enveloping it in flames and causing nine men to lose their lives. The ship, though badly damaged, was not wholly destroyed. A number of claims were presented to petitioner, and suits threatened, for damages exceeding by far the value of the steamship after the disaster.
Subsequent to the filing of said petition, claims and answers were filed by the owner of the cargo and by the legal representatives of those who lost their lives in the explosion. The issues having been made by the pleadings, the cause came on for trial before the district judge upon oral testimony on behalf of both petitioner and claimant. The trial was not concluded on this hearing, and the taking of further testimony by depositions was allowed by the court. After two additional hearings, the court entered a final decree which granted petitioner complete exoneration from liability.
The findings of fact by the court are amply supported by the evidence. They may be briefly summarized: On July 2, 1932, the Sabine Transportation Company, Inc., owners of the tank steamship Rawleigh Warner, entered into a charter party with American Mineral Spirits Corporation to transport a cargo of 39,000 barrels of water white products from Good Hope, La., to the charterer's plant at Carterette, N. J. The owners nominated said tank ship as the carrying vessel, and warranted it to be tight, staunch, and strong, and in every way fitted for the voyage.
On July 14, 1932, the chartered vessel arrived at Good Hope, La., to load the cargo (which was the property of the charterer) for transportation to New York City. On the evening of its arrival, the work of loading the vessel began. It continued during the night and into the early morning, first gasoline and then naphtha being loaded. About 6:10 a. m., July 15, the first explosion occurred, and flames enveloped the forward part of the ship from bridge to stem.
A few minutes before the explosion occurred, a negro workman in the employ of an independent contractor came on board with wrenches to disconnect the shore line through which the gasoline had been loaded. He had actually removed one of the iron bolts, and was about to remove another, when the explosion occurred, probably from a spark which this workman created. The officers and crew of the vessel had nothing to do with this work or workman, and the vapors, which were probably ignited by the spark, accumulated on the deck in the proper loading of the cargo. Unless the explosion was caused as found by the court, the cause is unknown.
Some of the claims filed herein are by representatives of deceased seamen, members of the crew; others for loss of life are by representatives of deceased employees of independent contractors, who were at work on board and acting within the scope of their respective employments. There is also a claim by the charterer for loss of the cargo. We are concerned here solely with the question of petitioner's limitation of or exoneration from liability to these claimants.
The right to recover for death of a seaman is governed by the Merchant Marine Act § 33, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, which allows the personal representative to recover upon proof of negligence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... N ... Y. C. & H. R. Co., 17 F. 905; Delaware Dredging Co ... v. Graham, 43 F.2d 852; Cruse v. Sabine ... Transportation Co., 88 F.2d 298; Bonner v. Texas ... Co., 89 F.2d 291; United ... ...
-
Larry v. Moody
...general maritime law. Gelb v. United States, supra; Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33, 46 S.Ct. 410, 70 L.Ed. 813; Cruse v. Sabine Transportation Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 298; Rey v. Colonial Naval Co., 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 580; Pittsburgh S. S. Company v. Palo, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 198; Page v. Uni......
-
Lindquist v. Dilkes
...plaintiff has proved negligence on the part of the employer. Brittingham v. Ore S. S. Corp., 4 Cir., 62 F.2d 616; Cruse v. Sabine Trans. Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 298. 27 In admiralty the parties obtain a trial de novo on appeal. Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal v. United States, 287 U. S. 170, 5......
-
Seeden v. Great Northern R. Co.
...of res ipsa loquitur is never applicable where the circumstances of the accident do not identify the wrongdoer.' Cruse v. Sabine Transp. Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 298, 300. The boxcar in question was not in the possession and control of either defendant nor upon the premises of either defendant ......