Petition of Esso Shipping Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 1058.,1058. |
| Citation | 122 F. Supp. 133 |
| Parties | Petition of ESSO SHIPPING CO. THE ESSO SUEZ. THE ESSO GREENSBORO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Baker, Botts, Andrews & Shepherd (Denman Moody and W. C. Harvin), Houston, Tex., and Kirlin, Campbell & Keating (Raymond T. Greene and Ira A Campbell), New York City for Esso Shipping Co.
Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski (Carl G. Stearns and Sweeney J. Doehring), Houston, Tex., for National Bulk Carriers.
Mandell & Wright (Arthur J. Mandell), Houston, Tex., for claimants Dockrill and others.
Herman E. Cooper, Herbert J. DeVarco, and Richard Gyory, New York City, and Elias Gatoura, Houston, Tex., for claimants Williams and others.
Charles Murphy, Houston, Tex., for claimants Moore and others.
Lockhart, Watson & Peterson (Edward W. Watson), Galveston, Tex., for claimant Bellamy.
Jacob Rassner, New York City, for claimant Zickl.
Walter F. Andrews, for officers and crew of The Esso Burlington. Nathan Tanenbaum, Abbo H. Kooistra and Christian W. Tolfsby, for officers and crew of The Esso New York.
Following a collision in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 1951, between the Esso Suez and the Esso Greensboro, two steamships owned and operated by the Esso Shipping Company, in which there was heavy loss of life and injuries to many persons, besides large property loss, the Esso Shipping Company October 4, 1951, filed in this court its petition for exoneration from and limitation of liability, Title 46, §§ 183 to 189, U.S. C.A., and Admiralty Rule 51 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A. All claims of persons for death, personal injury or property loss arising out of such collision and filed herein as required by the court have been settled by petitioner, except approximately two claims. Claims for salvage, however, have not been settled, but are disputed, and this is a hearing on the claims of numerous persons against the Esso Greensboro, and her owners and operators for salvage.
The facts are substantially as follows:
(a) The Esso Shipping Company, for brevity called petitioner, was before, on, and after April 20, 1951, the owner and operator of steamships, etc., including a number of tank steamers, which were used in transporting petroleum products, usually between ports on the Gulf of Mexico and ports on the Atlantic Ocean. These included the Tank Vessel Esso Suez, the Tank Vessel Esso Greensboro, the Esso New York, and the Esso Burlington.
(b) The Tank Vessel Esso Greensboro, of 10,195 gross tonnage, left Corpus Christi, Texas, on the Gulf of Mexico, April 19, 1951, with a full cargo of West Texas crude oil, bound for an Atlantic Ocean port. The Tank Vessel Esso Suez, of 17,061 gross tonnage, left Baltimore, Maryland, on April 10, 1951, without cargo, bound for Corpus Christi, Texas. At about 4:20 A. M. on April 20, 1951, there was a collision in the Gulf of Mexico between the Esso Suez and the Esso Greensboro, followed by explosions, fire, and the partial destruction of both vessels, etc. There was large loss of life among and injuries to the officers and crew of the two vessels. Also large property loss. The details are set forth in the margin.1
(c) The United States Coast Guard and shipping generally, including many vessels of various types, and including the Esso New York and Esso Burlington, owned by the Esso Shipping Company, took part in an effort to rescue survivors, to discover and recover the bodies of the deceased, and in an effort to recover and save property. Among the vessels which took part was the S.S. Virginia, not owned by the Esso Shipping Company, but owned by the National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
(d) The National Bulk Carriers, Inc., owner of the S.S. Virginia, filed a claim for salvage, but that has been withdrawn, and the remaining claimants are, all or some of the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia,2 all or some of the officers and crew of the Esso New York,3 and all or some of the officers and crew of the Esso Burlington.4 Such claims are against the Esso Greensboro and against petitioner, as her owner and operator.
(e) It is undisputed that the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia on the night of April 20-21, 1951, extinguished the fire on the Esso Greensboro, recovered approximately fifteen bodies of deceased persons thereon, made the necessary repairs or preparation to enable the Esso Greensboro to be towed, and thereafter towed the Esso Greensboro into the Port of Galveston, Texas.
(f) The second point made in petitioner's brief is as follows:
"The details of the firefighting operation indicate that the fire was comparatively simple to bring under control and extinguish."
I think and find that this statement is inaccurate. The Esso Greensboro carried a cargo of crude oil, and the firefighting operations were difficult and very dangerous.
(g) As has been stated, the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia, after the fires on the Esso Greensboro had been extinguished, towed her into the Port of Galveston, Texas. On the way, the bodies of the deceased seamen were removed by Petitioner from the Esso Greensboro. Petitioner in its brief says:
This view is unsupported by the evidence, except that the weather was probably good. The preparation for the towing and the towing were difficult and at times dangerous. The statement of the matter in the brief of one group of claimants, beginning when the fire was extinguished, is substantially correct.5 The towing time was not prolonged by any action of the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia.
(h) Petitioner says in its brief:
"The apparent lack of good faith on the part of the salvors is a factor to be considered by the Court and will cause a substantial diminution in any award to be made for the services rendered."
The evidence does not support this view. I find that neither the officers nor the crew of the S.S. Virginia were guilty of bad faith, but that they acted throughout in good faith.
(i) Petitioner says in its brief:
"The Esso Greensboro was not a derelict."
I find that at the time the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia first sighted the Esso Greensboro, about 7:30 P.M., April 20, 1951, the Esso Greensboro had been abandoned by petitioner and her owner, and was and continued to be a derelict.
(j) There was no previous relation, contract or otherwise, between the S.S. Virginia or her owners, officers, and crew, and the Esso Greensboro, her owners, officers, and crew. The officers and members of the crew of the S.S. Virginia were volunteer salvors in undertaking to extinguish the fire on the Esso Greensboro, to save any survivors, and to recover the bodies of the dead, and bring the Esso Greensboro and her cargo into a safe port. Their undertaking terminated in success.
(k) The value of the property saved has been stipulated to be $1,000,000.6
(1) There are other stipulations. No good purpose would be served by copying them here, but they are adopted and referred to and may be quoted, wholly or in part, here.
(m) Neither the officers nor the crew of the Esso New York did anything in the matter of extinguishing the fire on the Esso Greensboro nor in salvaging the Esso Greensboro. They did rescue four members of the crew and recovered the bodies of two members of the crew of the Esso Greensboro.7
(n) Neither the officers nor the crew of the Esso Burlington did anything in the matter of extinguishing the fire on the Esso Greensboro nor in salvaging the Esso Greensboro. They did, however, rescue one person and recover the body of one person who were members of the crew of the Esso Greensboro.8
1: The question of whether the Esso Greensboro had been abandoned by petitioner and was a derelict is one of fact. Belcher Oil Co. v. Griffin, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 425. The finding is that it had been abandoned and was a derelict.9 But petitioner says that under the facts here, it should be held, as a matter of law, that the Esso Greensboro had not been abandoned and that she was not a derelict.
While it is true that where a vessel is found deserted or abandoned at sea in a situation of peril, with no living person aboard her, she will be regarded as prima facie a derelict, I think the intention of her owners would have weight and should be inquired into.
Petitioner apparently contends that the intention of the petitioner with respect to the abandonment of the Esso Greensboro may be determined, or largely determined, by the action of the Esso New York and Esso Burlington, owned by petitioner. The Esso New York arrived near the Esso Greensboro about 10:00 A. M., April 20, 1951. After rescuing some survivors, she, on information received, assumed that there were no survivors on the Esso Greensboro and left the vicinity of the Esso Greensboro. She selected as her task and devoted her entire attention to the Esso Suez.
The Esso Burlington, when she arrived on the scene about 3:00 P. M., April 20, 1951, rescued one survivor and recovered one body, and also assuming, from information received, that there were no other survivors on board the Esso Greensboro, selected as her task the rescue of other survivors and the recovery of bodies in the water. There is no criticism of this action of the two vessels, but it shows that the officers and crew of neither vessel had any plan or intention of doing what was necessary and essential to be done, and what the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia did, i. e., go on board the Esso Greensboro, ascertain whether there was anyone alive thereon, extinguish the fire, recover the dead bodies, and tow the ship into harbor. The part the Esso New York and Esso Burlington took is substantially correctly stated in the quotation in the margin from petitioner's brief.10 I quote also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rauch v. Gulf Refining Company
...be called upon to exhibit special skill, and to expose themselves to special dangers, in a salvage operation. Petition of Esso Shipping Co., D.C., 122 F.Supp. 133, 1954 A.M.C. 734. The record shows that three men were killed and several injured in the initial explosion which started the fir......
- Ussery v. Anderson-Tully Co.