Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc. v. Brunson

Decision Date30 June 1965
Docket NumberNo. 2786,2884.,2786
Citation243 F. Supp. 198
PartiesSIOUX CITY AND NEW ORLEANS BARGE LINES, INC., a corporation, Libelant, v. W. D. BRUNSON, doing business as Brunson's Construction Company, Respondent. STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY, Libelant, v. BARGE SC AND N.O. 1515, Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., a corporation, owner of the said Barge SC and N.O. 1515, and W. D. Brunson, doing business as Brunson Construction Company, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

Edwin J. Curran, Jr., of Vickers, Riis, Murray & Curran, Mobile, Ala., for libelant Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.

George F. Wood, of Pillans, Reams, Tappan, Wood & Roberts, Mobile, Ala., for libelant Stauffer Chemical Co.

Alexander F. Lankford, III, of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, Mobile, Ala., for respondent Brunson.

DANIEL HOLCOMBE THOMAS, District Judge.

These consolidated cases arise out of the sinking of the Barge SC & N.O. 1515, hereinafter referred to as the 1515, at the dock of Stauffer Chemical Company's plant at LeMoyne, Alabama, during the night of November 24, 1958, or the early morning hours of November 25. The 1515 is, and was at that time, owned by Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Sioux City. At the time of the sinking the 1515 was partially loaded with approximately 839 tons of crude sulfur which was the property of Stauffer Chemical Company, hereinafter referred to as Stauffer.

W. D. Brunson, doing business as Brunson's Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as Brunson, had a contract with Stauffer for the discharging of sulfur from barges which were to be spotted at Stauffer's dock by Sioux City, and removing it to the Stauffer plant, approximately one and a half miles from the dock. Stauffer seeks to recover from Brunson damages done to the crude sulfur which remained in the 1515 at the time of the sinking. Sioux City seeks to recover from Brunson the damages to the 1515 occasioned by the sinking.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Stauffer owns and operates a plant at LeMoyne, Alabama, which uses crude sulfur as a basic raw material in its manufacturing process. This crude sulfur, in bulk form, is transported from Port Sulfur, Louisiana, to Stauffer's dock at LeMoyne in covered hopper type barges by Sioux City, pursuant to a written contract.

A written contract was entered into between Stauffer and Brunson on the 1st of October, 1957, whereby Brunson was to discharge all sulfur barges at Stauffer's dock. The contract provided, among other things, that Brunson would provide such equipment as was necessary to completely discharge a barge of sulfur within twenty-four hours after it was moored at Stauffer's dock, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and weather not excepted. It also provided that Brunson would have sole and exclusive care, custody and control of the sulfur from the time the barges were moored at the dock until it was delivered and accepted at the plant; and that Brunson would assume full responsibility for any and all damage to the sulfur occurring while in his custody or possession. Brunson also thereby assumed responsibility for any damage done to barges in the process of unloading.

Stauffer was to furnish a safe berth and wharf or pier for the barges, and was to notify Brunson as to the date of any shipment of sulfur.

Stauffer's dock facilities consisted of a wooden pier or platform extending slightly out over the river. This pier was narrow and necessitated the leaving of Brunson's crane in one position during the entire unloading operation. From this one position it was impossible to completely unload a barge without the barge being shifted. A system was devised whereby Sioux City would bring in two barges, the first barge would be tied off to piling clusters upstream from the pier, the second being placed in tandem with its stern adjacent to the pier. Brunson would commence discharging the second barge from the stern, completely discharging the sulfur as he moved forward with the clamshell. At such point as the clamshell could not reach any more sulfur, the lines on the barge would be loosened, allowing the barge to slip downstream under the force of the river current, to a point where more sulfur could be removed.

When the barge was completely discharged Brunson would notify Stauffer, who in turn would secure the services of a tug to shift the barges, moving the upstream full barge to an unloading position and moving the empty barge away from the pier.

It was impossible to remove all the sulfur from a barge with a clamshell. So, even though Brunson was to provide all equipment necessary to completely unload a barge under the contract, Stauffer maintained and furnished to Brunson, a payloader along with brooms to clean out the barges. Stauffer was interested in recovering all the sulfur since title had vested in them at the point of loading. Stauffer also furnished tarps to cover the sulfur on the dump trucks of Brunson to avoid any waste between the dock and plant.

Though the contract between Stauffer and Brunson provided that a barge would be completely unloaded within twenty-four hours after mooring, this was never accomplished. Under the prevailing working conditions a barge could be approximately one-half discharged during daylight hours. Night operations were attempted at the very beginning of the contract and found to be impossible due to the lack of illumination in the area. The lack of lights at the dock created too great a hazard to the safety of both the men and equipment.

So, during the life of the contract, except for the initial trial, Brunson discharged only during daylight hours. At the end of each day a check of the barge would be made to see that it was secured and that everything was in order.

During the hours of darkness the barges were unattended, so far as Brunson's men were involved. Brunson and his foreman, Robinson, stated that near the beginning of the contract Mr. Gordon Mitchell, plant manager for Stauffer, told them that someone from Stauffer would check the barges at night. Mitchell denied this, stating that no one from Stauffer was assigned to check the barges at night. Other personnel of Stauffer stated they had made visits to the dock at night. Mr. Allen, superintendent of operations for Stauffer, stated that the foreman (Stauffer's) would, from time to time, go to the dock and casually inspect the barge and area.

Certain events indicate that Stauffer personnel did go to the dock area and check the barges during the hours of darkness and at other times when Brunson's men would not be present. On one occasion someone from Stauffer found a fire in one of the sulfur cargoes and extinguished it. Again a fire was found near a barge and extinguished. On another occasion someone from Stauffer discovered a leak in a barge, placed a pump aboard and called Brunson.

The 1515 is a covered hopper type barge made of steel, 200' long, 40' wide, and 11' deep. It was built in 1954, being four years old at the time of the sinking.

In early November, 1958, Mr. Drum, Sioux City's Port Engineer, inspected the 1515 in New Orleans, and according to him there was no fracture in the forward rake at that time.

Captain Battiste, captain of the Tug GH, which belonged to Nebel Towing Company, Sioux City's subcontractor, stated that on sounding of each compartment of the 1515 before loading for the trip to Stauffer's in November, 1958, he found nothing wrong.

The log of the Tug GH shows that the 1515 and the Barge 1504 were loaded at Port Sulfur, Louisiana, on November 19, 1958. The Tug GH left Port Sulfur at approximately 6:15 p.m., the 19th.

On the 20th of November, the Tug GH tied off the 1515 and the 1504 at the Industrial Willows between 7:00 a. m. and 7:15 a. m. The Tug GH left the area and went to Cliff's Landing to pick up another barge, returning to the Industrial Willows at 2:00 p. m. S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Davenport Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n of Davenport, Iowa v. Hospital Service, Inc., of Iowa
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1967
    ...Brewing Co., 222 Iowa 630, 634, 269 N.W. 754; In re Estate of Newson, 206 Iowa 514, 518, 219 N.W. 305; Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc. v. Brunson, D.C., 243 F.Supp. 198, 202; 17 A C.J.S. Contracts § 373--375, pages 419--428; 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, section 465, page 934; and S......
  • Vise v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1969
    ...he is liable for damage resulting from such negligence. Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Brunson, 380 F.2d 174; Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines v. Brunson, 243 F.Supp. 198; Meyerson v. New Idea Hosiery Co., 217 Ala. 153, 115 So. 94, 55 A.L.R. 1231; H. H. Parker & Bro. v. Hodgson, 172 Ala. 63......
  • Stauffer Chemical Company v. Brunson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 28, 1969
    ... ... Wood, Mobile, Ala., Seymour Simon, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant; Pillans, Reams, Tappan, ... the loss of the cargo by the sinking of the barge during the night when unloading was not going on ... ...

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