Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 125
| Decision Date | 05 January 1931 |
| Docket Number | 145,No. 125,146.,125 |
| Citation | 47 F.2d 172 |
| Parties | HENRY DU BOIS SONS CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. THE MERCER. WALLING et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. (two cases). THE P. R. R. No. 32 et al. THE MARGARET G. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William F. Purdy, of New York City (John E. Purdy, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant-appellee.
Single & Single, of New York City (Wm. J. Mahar, of New York City, of counsel), for libelants-appellants.
Burlingham, Veeder, Fearey, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and P. Fearson Shortridge, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Pennsylvania R. Co.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Although the evidence is rather meager, the conclusion is inescapable that the Margaret G did, when she sank, slide out under the dredge, and, by hitting the spud, do the damage occasioned the dredge. The Mercer tied her up Sunday morning. We may assume that her leaking condition made this necessary, but, of course, there was no immediate danger of her then sinking, and the Mercer had ample time to fulfill whatever may have been its duty to give her a safe berth. That she would probably sink if left to her own devices may be taken for granted, since that was why the Mercer moored her. Without knowing or taking any steps to ascertain the nature of the bottom, the Mercer left the Margaret G to sink or float as the event might develop without any aid from the tug whatever.
When the Mercer took her out of the tow to moor because of her leaking condition, the tug was bound to exercise the skill and care a prudent navigator would employ in like circumstances, for the bailment continued until the service contracted for was performed or performance excused. Doherty v. Penn R. Co. (C. C. A.) 269 F. 959; The W. H. Baldwin (C. C. A.) 271 F. 411; Maryland Transportation Co. v. Dempsey (C. C. A.) 279 F. 94. The duty the Mercer owed the Margaret G was not fulfilled by tying her up and leaving her to sink unless reasonable care would not have prevented her sinking at all. So, before we need consider the choice of a berth, we may well inquire whether the Mercer was justified in abandoning the coal boat at any berth.
Certainly, abandonment to sink at the pier, before all reasonable efforts to keep her afloat were exhausted, was a breach of duty imposed by law, The Joseph F. Clinton (C. C. A.) 250 F. 977, and the burden is on the tug to show that no reasonable effort on her part would have kept the coal boat afloat, Appeal of Cahill (C. C. A.) 124 F. 63. As to that the record is silent. We know, however, that water was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Kinsman Transit Company
...of which the vessel held solely liable had become aware — typified by the tug that neglects a leaky tow, as in Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania RR., 47 F.2d 172 (2 Cir.1931), or in what was fated to be Judge Learned Hand's last opinion, Chemical Transporter, Inc. v. M. Turecamo, Inc.,......
-
W. Towboat Co. v. Vigor Marine, LLC
...[the tow] to sink at the pier, before all reasonable efforts to keep her afloat were exhausted ...." Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co. , 47 F.2d 172, 173 (2d Cir. 1931). In such circumstances, courts held towers solely liable for the sinking where "it was not shown by the tug th......
-
Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. TL James & Co.
...Corp., 4 Cir., 200 F.2d 33; F. E. Grauwiller Transp. Co. v. Exner Sand & Gravel Corp., 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 90; Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 172. It was the direct and proximate cause of the loss in Carrier's expert's gratuitous speculation that the hole was pu......
-
Houma Well Service, Inc. v. Tug Capt. O'Brien, Civ. A. No. 66-883.
...the final opportunity, as well as the duty, to avert the damage, sometimes called the last clear chance. In Henry Du Bois Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir. 1931, 47 F.2d 172, the court held a tug liable for the sinking of its tow when the tug could have prevented the casualty by promp......