Penn Central Company v. Buckley & Co.

Decision Date04 December 1968
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 871-68.
Citation293 F. Supp. 653
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
PartiesPENN CENTRAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BUCKLEY & CO., Inc., a corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Schiavone Construction Company, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, and Schiavone-Buckley, operating as a joint venture with principal offices at 1600 Paterson Plank Road, Paterson, New Jersey, Defendants.

Lum, Biunno & Tompkins, by Joseph R. McMahon, Newark, N. J., Walter Fessler, Convent, N. J., Carl Helmetag, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Nolan & Lynes, by Jerome M. Lynes, Newark, N. J., for defendants.

OPINION

WORTENDYKE, District Judge:

This cause came on for hearing upon return of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be accorded to plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint. In lieu of the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by F.R.Civ.P. 52 the Court's Opinion is as follows:

Plaintiff (Penn Central) is a corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It operates an extensive railroad system in interstate commerce for the transportation of passengers and freight. A substantial portion of these operations are in the State of New Jersey. The defendants are Buckley & Co., Inc., a corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Schiavone Construction Company, a corporation of the State of New Jersey and Schiavone-Buckley, operating as a joint venture. At all times relevant to the factual issues herein the Schiavone-Buckley joint venture was engaged in the performance of a certain construction contract for the widening of the New Jersey Turnpike with the Authority under Contracts No. W-1601 and W-1602.

In conducting interstate transportation between New York City in the State of New York and Newark in the State of New Jersey, and points elsewhere in the United States, south and west of Newark, Penn Central has a two-track main railroad line extending between Newark and New York City which provides the only rail access of Penn Central to and from New York City. Over 68,000 people are transported over this main line daily between and including Monday and Friday of each week. Many of these passengers are commuters traveling to and from New York City in the pursuit of their daily gainful occupations.

Penn Central's main line segment between New York and Newark crosses the Hackensack River, a navigable water course in the State of New Jersey. To accomplish this crossing Penn Central and its predecessor companies have, since 1910, maintained a bridge known as Undergrade Bridge 6.10. This bridge clears by approximately 24 feet the mean high water level of the river and is of the swing type. When vessels of a height which will not permit their passing beneath the bridge require passage through the same, the bridge is opened by turning upon its center pillar to a position approximately at right angles to its closed position, or roughly parallel to the shore and in line with the flow of the river. With the bridge in its open position, two channels, each approximately 200 feet in width and known respectively as the east and west channels, are open to river traffic. The bridge is lighted at night and navigation lights are maintained to assist river traffic in the vicinity thereof. The opening and closing of the bridge is accomplished by a complex system of gears, shafts and levers activated electrically and pneumatically. This machinery, if severely damaged, would require considerable time for repairs thereto because of the necessity of fabricating or otherwise acquiring the special components required for its operation. In addition to the machinery which opens and closes the bridge there is additional machinery installed primarily at the ends of the swinging portion of the bridge which is required for the interlocking of the railroad's signal system. This system is essential to the safe operation of the railroad because of the heavy rail traffic over the bridge. For the bridge to function, all of the complex machinery and signal installations above described must operate. If this machinery were seriously damaged it would not function during the making of the necessary repairs which would consume an extended period of time. While the bridge is not functioning, either rail or river traffic, or both, would come to a standstill with resulting inconvenience and harm either to the railroad and the members of the public using its service every day or to water traffic on the river or both.

River traffic on the Hackensack River is extensive. In August 1968 the bridge was opened 634 times to permit the passage of vessels of heights exceeding the span height of the closed bridge. The river traffic has been increasing by reason of the defendants' operations which have consisted of towing of loaded and empty fill barges through the channels spanned by the bridge, and these operations are expected to continue for at least another year.

The bridge is protected against strikings by passing vessels by means of an elaborate fender system. The principal part of this fender system is comprised of a wooden structure in the center of the river roughly parallel to the opposite shoreline at that location. When the bridge is in its open position, this midstream fender structure extends approximately 33 feet beyond the ends and 4 feet beyond the sides of the movable bridge span. The fender structure is comprised of a series of pilings, each approximately 12 inches in diameter, driven into the river bed. Attached horizontally to the pilings are four rows of 12" × 12" timbers. Attached to the horizontal timbers are vertical timbers, each approximately 5" × 8". These items are placed next to each other and they completely enclose the horizontal timbers and the pilings within them. In addition to this center fender structure, there are, at each end thereof, clusters of pilings also driven into the bed of the river and lashed together with heavy cables. There are fenders of similar construction along the two shore-side abutments of the bridge. Although the bridge and fender system were originally constructed over 30 years ago both have been constantly maintained by repair and replacement. During the past two years in the course of this maintenance program 80% of the fender system has been repaired by new timbers and pilings. There was no evidence before the Court upon the hearing on the return of the order to show cause tending to disclose that either the mechanical functioning of the bridge or the construction and maintenance of the fender system are other than adequate.

The procedure pursued in opening the bridge is as follows: Upon approaching the bridge, the vessel desiring the passage through one of the channels thereof blows three blasts on its whistle. The bridgetender, one of the three persons who man the bridge shifts around the clock, relays the vessel's whistled request by telephone to the bridge block tower operator at the eastern end of the bridge. The block tower operator, over an open telephone line to the train dispatcher in New York City, requests permission to open the bridge. The dispatcher either gives permission to open the bridge or orders it to remain closed. This decision by the train dispatcher depends upon the rail traffic in the vicinity of the bridge. If a train, either east or west of the bridge, is within five minutes running time to the bridge, the bridge will be kept closed; otherwise instructions will be issued to the bridge-tender to open the bridge. The time consumed in transmitting a request for permission to open the bridge and the relay of instructions respecting opening occupies less than one minute; but there are delays in opening the bridge because of the presence of rail traffic on or in the vicinity of the bridge. On the shore of the Hackensack River south of the bridge is an area known as Snake Hill. Because of a bend in the river and the presence of very strong tidal currents, this is one of the most treacherous navigation areas in the entire harbor of New York.

The defendants, in the performance of their contracts with New Jersey Turnpike Authority, move sand and other fill materials loaded in the vicinity of Staten Island, New York, in large scows having beams in excess of 35 feet, upstream in the Hackensack River to points north of the bridge. These scows are pushed or towed by five tugs viz: the Callahan, Elizabeth, San Pedro, San Carlos and Bull Frog. After the scows have been unloaded at the site of the turnpike widening operations they are moved, empty or light, downstream on the river and through the bridge to complete their return to the loading point near Staten Island. Within a 24 hour period several round trips of the scows are possible; the exact...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kalmanovitz v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • September 28, 1984
    ..."the circumstances are such that the injunction cannot be enforced by the court." 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 34; Penn Central Co. v. Buckley & Co., 293 F.Supp. 653 (D.N.J.1963), aff'd, 415 F.2d 762 (3d It is presently infeasible to ask this Court to enjoin acts which purportedly will violate t......
  • Great American Ins. Co. v. Tugs" Cissi Reinauer"
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 8, 1996
    ...OF NAVIGATION Navigation for the purpose of commerce constitutes the paramount use of navigable waterways. Penn Central Co. v. Buckley & Co., 293 F.Supp. 653, 658-59 (D.N.J. 1968), aff'd, 415 F.2d 762 (3d Cir.1969). This right, however, is a qualified one. The paramount right of navigation ......
  • United States v. Izlar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 19, 1968
  • Melbourne Bros. Const. Co. v. Gnots-Reserve
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 11, 1984
    ...conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." As stated in Penn Central Company v. Buckley & Co., 293 F.Supp. 653 (N.J.1968), at page 659: "In exercising their right of navigation the defendants, of course, are required to exercise reasonable care......

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