Dow Chemical Company v. BARGE UM-23B

Decision Date13 April 1970
Docket NumberNo. 27330.,27330.
Citation424 F.2d 307
PartiesThe DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Libelant-Appellee and Cross Appellant, v. The BARGE UM-23B, its tackle, apparel, etc., and the BARGE BC-598, its tackle, apparel, etc., in rem, and Bartlett & Company, Missouri River Barge Lines, Inc., Cargo Carriers, Inc., Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation, and Two Twenty-Eight Terminal Services, Inc., in personam, Respondents-Respondents Impleader-Cross Appellees. CARGO CARRIERS, INC., Respondent-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWO TWENTY-EIGHT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., and Insurance Company of North America, Third Party Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Ben W. Lightfoot, Wallace A. Hunter, Baton Rouge, La., for Two Twenty-Eight Terminal Services, Inc.

Tom F. Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., for Cargo Carriers, Inc.

Neal D. Hobson, New Orleans, La., for Dow Chem. Co.

J. Barbee Winston, James H. Roussel, New Orleans, La., for Bartlett & Co., and Missouri River Barge Lines, Inc.

Margot Mazeau, New Orleans, La., for Dorr Towing.

J. Y. Gilmore, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Upper Miss. Towing Corp.

Before RIVES, BELL and DYER, Circuit Judges.

DYER, Circuit Judge:

We are concerned in this appeal with who should bear the cost of Dow Chemical's mooring facility which was replaced after being struck on two separate occasions by breakaway drifting barges. The District Court found the wharfinger, Cargo Carriers, Inc., negligent in connection with the breakaway of Barge BC-598 on March 28, 1964, but further found that an efficient intervening cause of the barge's collision with Dow's dolphin was the negligence of the tug Skipjack, owned and operated by Two Twenty-Eight Terminal Services, Inc., an independent contractor, upon whom liability was cast. The District Court found Cargo Carriers, Inc., negligent and liable in connection with the breakaway of Barge UM-23B on December 30, 1964, and its collision with the dolphin. The owners and operators of the barges involved in each of the two casualties were exonerated and they recovered from Cargo Carriers, Inc. reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended by them in defending this suit. All parties except the barge owners appeal. We affirm.

In the afternoon of March 27, 1964, the Barge BC-598 owned by Bartlett and Company, Grain, and operated by Missouri River Barge Lines, Inc., was placed in the public barge fleet owned and operated by Cargo Carriers in its barge terminal in the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. About ten thirty that night twelve dumb barges, including the Barge BC-598, broke out of the fleet as a result of some turbulence in the river. The tug, Marion M, under charter to Cargo Carriers, and charged with the responsibility for tending the fleet, radioed the tug Skipjack, owned and operated by Two Twenty-Eight Terminal Services, Inc., for assistance in retrieving the breakaway barges. The Skipjack found seven of the drifting barges, including the Barge BC-598.

When the Barge BC-598 and another barge known as the GB-1 were captured by the Skipjack about 1:05 A.M. on March 28, 1964, they were pushed ashore, shackled together and tied to a willow tree on the bank of the river with a single line from the tree to one end of one of the barges.

Subsequently, Barge BC-598 was seen drifting down river and at about 7:00 A.M., March 28, 1964, it collided with the Dow dolphin. Substantial damage to the dolphin was caused by this collision.

On December 30, 1964, before any repairs to Dow's dolphin were accomplished, Barge UM-23B, owned by Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation, broke away from Cargo Carriers fleeting area, drifted down the river and collided with the same Dow dolphin. Additional substantial damage was done to the dolphin and it was subsequently removed and replaced.

Dow then brought this suit against the Barges BC-598 and UM-23B in rem, and their respective owners in personam. Also named as respondents were Cargo Carriers and Two Twenty-Eight and its tug, Skipjack, and Two Twenty-Eight's insurer.

The First Casualty

The District Court allocated $22,300 damages to the casualty of March 28, 1964, and judgment for this amount was entered against Two Twenty-Eight Terminal Services, Inc. Dow contends that Cargo Carriers is solidarily liable with Two Twenty-Eight for this damage because Cargo Carriers knew that the barge was negligently tied to a tree after its capture. This contention gives us little pause. The District Court found that the Skipjack never advised the Marion M or Cargo Carriers that the BC-598 was inadequately moored. The record fully supports this finding.

Two Twenty-Eight attempts to avoid liability on two grounds: First it urges that it was engaged in a salvage operation when it captured the BC-598 and moored it to a tree on the bank. It denies that the barge was inadequately moored but, in any event, it argues that there was no proof that it, as a salvor, was guilty of willful or gross negligence, and that it therefore could not be cast in judgment. Two Twenty-Eight further asserts that the trial court was in error in failing to sustain its defense of laches.

The captain of the Skipjack testified that the barges BC-598 and GB-1 were tied with a single line to a willow tree in such a fashion that a disturbance, "such as that caused by a passing ship" would definitely have caused the barges to break loose. This evidence was uncontradicted. The District Court had no alternative but to find that such an inadequate mooring was an act of negligence.

The question is whether Two Twenty-Eight was a salvor and, therefore, not liable except for gross or willful negligence. Subsequent to March 28, 1964, Two Twenty-Eight submitted an invoice to Cargo Carriers for the Skipjack's hire calculated at the rate of $20.00 per hour, and this bill was paid. Two Twenty-Eight's lien for picking up the barges and tying them off on the shore started from the time the Skipjack left the dock. When there are breakaway barges the objective of one rendering assistance (Two Twenty-Eight) is to stop them before they get further down the river, because of the substantial expense to the owner in returning them. They are normally, and were in this instance, shoved onto the bank and tied up and then returned later.

Under the circumstances here present we find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that the parties contemplated that Two Twenty-Eight was going to render voluntary assistance to save the breakaway barges from impending peril and claim remuneration for salvage services. We agree with the finding of the District Court that, on the occasion in question, as it appears had been done in the past, Two Twenty-Eight was hired to render assistance in recapturing the barges quickly and thus ameliorate the towing expense that Cargo Carriers would be put to in bringing the breakaway barges back from down river to the Terminal. We therefore think it unlikely that Two Twenty-Eight was acting as a salvor. But even assuming a salvage situation, it does not extricate Two Twenty-Eight from the consequences of its negligent mooring of Barge BC-598.

Relying on The Noah's Ark v. Bentley and Felton Corporation, 5 Cir. 1961, 292 F.2d 437, Two Twenty-Eight contends that there was non-distinguishable damage here (the same type of damage which would have been sustained had not the salvage efforts taken place) and therefore there was no liability because there was no showing of willful or gross negligence. This reads Noah's Ark too broadly. Noah's Ark was concerned with damages to the salvaged vessel itself. Furthermore, there whether the damages were distinguishable or non-distinguishable could be readily ascertained. Here we are concerned with damage sustained by a third party and whether it would have even occurred had Two Twenty-Eight not interrupted the barges' breakaway journey is pure speculation. More importantly, however, Two Twenty-Eight's negligence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy St. Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 13, 2018
    ...res is located, but that jurisdiction does not attach until the vessel is arrested within the jurisdiction."); Dow Chem. Co. v. Barge UM-23B , 424 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1970) ("Attachment subjecting the res to the jurisdiction of the court is a prerequisite to a finding of in rem liabilit......
  • E. C. Ernst, Inc. v. Manhattan Const. Co. of Texas
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 9, 1977 perhaps best evidenced by cases applying the rule to indemnities arising by operation of law. See, e. g., Dow Chem. Co. v. Barge UM-23B, 424 F.2d 307, 312 (CA5 1970); Celotex Corp. v. Becknell Constr., Inc., 325 So.2d 566 (Miss.1976).29 Compare Pennsylvania R.R. v. Chicago, M., St. P. & ......
  • In re Savage Inland Marine, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • May 17, 2021
    ...n.5 (8th Cir. 1978). Even though a fleeter is not an absolute insurer to the barges in which it is entrusted, Dow Chem. Co. v. The Barge UM-23B , 424 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1970), "[t]he operator of a fleeting facility as bailee has the responsibility of caring for the barge after it is co......
  • Minott v. Brunello
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • June 6, 2018
    ...subjecting the res to the jurisdiction of the court is a prerequisite to a finding of in rem liability." Dow Chem. Co. v. The Barge UM-23B , 424 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1970) (italics added). For example, in The Pesaro the Supreme Court exercised interlocutory jurisdiction over a "decree" t......
  • 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