Swenson v. Snare & Triest Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1908 |
| Docket Number | 193. |
| Citation | 160 F. 459 |
| Parties | SWENSON v. SNARE & TRIEST CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
H. M Hitchings, for appellant.
Hyland & Zabriskie (Nelson Zabriskie, of counsel), for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
This was a libel in personam to recover damages for the loss of a pile driver which occurred in the East river in July, 1905. It is admitted that the pile driver was chartered by the respondent from the libelant and that while in the exclusive possession of the respondent it sank and was lost. As such an occurrence is not in the ordinary course of things, the burden was thrown on the respondent as a bailee to show how the loss took place and that it was not caused by its negligence.
The respondent has sought to sustain this burden by presenting testimony that, while the pile driver was being towed by the respondent's tug from Flushing to pier 15 at about midnight of said day, she appeared to list near the Brooklyn Bridge, and, being top-heavy, almost immediately capsized and sank; that this occurred while the pile driver was being towed with due care, and before any attempt had been made to turn into the pier of destination. The respondent's contention is that the cause of the accident was the unseaworthiness of the pile driver, and it has offered evidence tending to show that it was in fact old and unseaworthy. The libelant, on the other hand, has offered testimony tending to show that the pile driver was seaworthy and he contends that the cause of the capsizing was negligent towage; that the tug turned in towards pier 15 and brought the driver around too sharply for that kind of a vessel. The libelant has called one witness, who testified that on the occasion in question he saw a tug with a pile driver in tow turning toward the New York shore, and that the pile driver listed and finally capsized. He has also presented other testimony supporting his contention in a less degree. He further calls attention to the circumstances that the driver sank at just about the place where the tug should have turned into pier 15.
All the questions presented are pure questions of fact. If the testimony of the respondent's witness is credited, there was no negligence on its part. If what they said was true the driver undoubtedly filled and capsized because it was unseaworthy. But if what they said was not true-- if the testimony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tomkins Cove Stone Co. v. Bleakley Transp. Co.
...Merchant Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty S. & G. Co. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 514; Lewis v. Jones (C. C. A.) 27 F.(2d) 72; Swenson v. Snare & Triest Co. (C. C. A.) 160 F. 459. As both the trial court and this court have put out of the case all the evidence introduced by the charterer to disprove its ne......
-
THE WHITE CITY
...(C. C. A.) 268 F. 102; Bushey v. Hedger (C. C. A.) 40 F.(2d) 417; Cummings v. Pa. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 45 F.(2d) 152. Swenson v. Snare & Triest Co., 160 F. 459 (C. C. A. 2), though at times cited for the same doctrine, is scarcely an authority, because the nature of the injury was such as t......
-
Parker v. Washington Tug & Barge Co.
...were maritime contracts, and it was held that liability should be measured according to the law of bailment. In Swenson v. Snare & Triest Co., 160 F. 459, 87 C. A. 443, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, while considering liability under a charter party, said: 'This was a ......
-
THE MABEL
...Merchant Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty S. & G. Co. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 514; Lewis v. Jones (C. C. A.) 27 F.(2d) 72; Swenson v. Snare & Triest Co. (C. C. A.) 160 F. 459." In Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co. v. Nova Scotia S. S. Corp., 40 F.(2d) 167, 168, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First......