Hill v. George Engine Company, 3510.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 3510.,3510. |
| Citation | 190 F. Supp. 417 |
| Parties | Norman HILL, Libelant, v. GEORGE ENGINE COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, J. Barbee Winston, New Orleans, La., for libelant.
Adams & Reese, W. Ford Reese, Henry B. Alsobrook, New Orleans, La., for respondent.
Norman Hill, former owner of the M. V. Waw Hoss, brings this action against George Engine Company, Inc. for indemnification for the principal sum of $12,949.94, paid by Hill to the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, in satisfaction of a claim made by the Corps of Engineers against Hill for damage to a miter leaf gate of the Harvey Canal locks at Harvey, Louisiana, as a result of the striking of the gate by a barge in tow of the tug Waw Hoss on June 11, 1953. The basis for the cause of action is that the collision resulted from the alleged failure of George Engine Company, Inc. properly to perform an agreement with Hill pertaining to the installation of a propulsion engine in the Waw Hoss. The Corps of Engineers made claim against Hill only. Hill, maintaining that George Engine Company, Inc. is the party actually responsible for the damage, with the knowledge and agreement of George Engine Company, Inc. as to reasonableness of the amount, satisfied the claim of the Corps of Engineers and makes this claim over against respondent.
On June 11, 1953, the M. V. Waw Hoss, owned by Hill, was engaged, as she had been for some time prior thereto, in the service of locking barges back and forth through Harvey locks as a service to other tows. The Waw Hoss had a steel hull, was about 64 feet in length and 17 feet in breadth, and her propulsion engine was a General Motors diesel, Model 6-110, of approximately 275 horsepower, which was pilothouse controlled. The reversing marine clutch of the Waw Hoss was operated by a Tridyne positioner, mounted on the engine, and the Tridyne positioner was in turn activated by a "B-3" pilotair valve. The pilotair valve consists of three identical on and off valve units flush mounted on the instrument panel in the pilothouse which supply air pressure to the Tridyne positioner.
On June 11, 1953, at or in the vicinity of the forebay on the Mississippi River side of the Harvey locks the Waw Hoss faced up to the barge STCO 121, a steel tank barge about 194 feet in length and 35 feet in breadth, which was without cargo, in a rigid tow, for the purpose of locking the barge through from the Mississippi River to the Harvey Canal. In the crew of the Waw Hoss, in addition to Hill who was acting as master and helmsman, there was a deckhand, Hanisee.
After the lock gates to the Mississippi River were opened, Hill pressed and released the forward button or valve unit of the pilotair valve, and the Waw Hoss proceeded into the locks at slow speed. Hanisee, the deckhand, was on the starboard bow of the barge for the purpose of tying her up in the locks. There was no current, it was daylight, and the weather was clear. When the bow of the STCO 121 was near the starboard lock wall, and about 100 to 150 feet from the lock gates on the Harvey Canal side, Hill sought to reverse the engine of the Waw Hoss by pressing, and then releasing, the neutral and reverse buttons of the pilot-air control system.
The forward speed of the tow did not decrease, and Hill again sought to reverse the engine as before. Again the engine did not respond, and the speed of the Waw Hoss and her tow appeared to increase. Hill the third time sought to reverse the engine, without success, and then called to Hanisee to secure a line on a bollard on the lock wall. Hanisee was able to get a line from the barge on to a bollard on the lock wall, but because of the speed of the tow was not able to get sufficient turns on the bitt on the barge before the line ran out, blistering his hands. The port bow of the barge STCO 121 then struck the miter leaf gate of the locks on the Harvey Canal side, inflicting damage to the gate.
Immediately after the casualty, and while the tow was in the locks, Hill went to the engine room to try to determine why the engine apparently did not reverse. After a search, he found that the Tridyne positioner and the engine reverse gear control valve for the reversing marine clutch had become disconnected because a bolt serving to connect linkage between the Tridyne positioner and the reverse gear control valve was not in place. In order to move the vessel out of the locks, Hill installed a one-fourth inch threaded bolt and nut from a supply aboard the vessel, and then backed the Waw Hoss and its tow out of the locks, mooring the Waw Hoss to the guide wall at the entrance to the locks on the Mississippi River side.
Shortly after the casualty and while the Waw Hoss still lay tied up to the guide wall, Earl C. Wood, marine surveyor on behalf of the Waw Hoss, boarded the vessel and, accompanied by Hill and Hanisee, went to the engine room. Wood found that the Tridyne positioner, which was mounted on a bracket attached to the after end of the engine reverse gear housing, was connected to the reverse gear control valve by means of a shop-made adjustable length link arm composed of a yoke-type knuckle joint on each end secured to the reverse gear control valve on the forward end by means of the one-fourth inch threaded bolt with one nut which had been temporarily installed by Hill, and on the after end by means of a one-half inch threaded bolt which had no nut. The one-half inch bolt was not drilled for a cotter pin. A bolt which undoubtedly had been in, and dropped out of, the forward end of the adjustable link arm was found behind the main starboard engine after end supporting bracket, and one nut was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Midland Enterprises, Inc.
...to such properties injured by vessels—all without regard to whether any negligence was involved in the damaging. Hill v. George Engine Co., 190 F.Supp. 417 (E.D.La., 1961) (and cases therein cited—in personam— no negligence shown); United States v. The M/V Martin, 313 F.2d 851 (7th Cir., 19......
-
Kemper Architects, P.C. v. McFall, Konkel & Kimball Consulting Engineers, Inc.
...it was "severely prejudiced" by the challenged instructions. The architect says that the factually similar case of Hill v. George Engine Company, 190 F.Supp. 417 (E.D.La.1961)- , should govern. However, a careful reading of Hill reveals that the implied contractual duty owed was breached by......
-
Ferguson v. Town Pump, Inc.
...Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co. (1958), 355 U.S. 563, 569, 78 S.Ct. 438, 442, 2 L.Ed.2d 491, 495; Hill v. George Engine Company (D.La.1961), 190 F.Supp. 417. In reviewing a directed verdict all evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdic......
-
Ardoin v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
...Eastes et al, 160 F.2d 189 (5 Cir. 1947); Pinion v. Mississippi Shipping Co., 156 F.Supp. 652 (E.D.La.1957); and Hill v. George Engine Co., Inc., 190 F. Supp. 417 (E.D.La.1961). In Picton there was clearly an active breach of an express contract provision in the failure to remove a piling f......