United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
Nature of the Case
This was an action to recover damages for the sinking of a barge. Carroll Towing Co. (D) sought review of a judgment holding the company liable for damage to a barge and for lost cargo.
Facts
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company chartered a barge owned by Conners Marine Co. Grace Line chartered the tug ‘Carroll’ owned by Carroll Towing. Grace Line sent the Carroll to move a barge which lay at the end of the Public Pier; and in order to do so it was necessary to throw off the line between the two tiers. The ‘Carroll’ nosed up against the outer barge of the tier lying off Pier 52, ran a line from her own stem to the middle bit of that barge, and kept working her engines ‘slow ahead’ against the ebb tide which was making at that time. To make sure that the tier on Pier 52 was safely moored the harbormaster and the deckhand of the Carroll went aboard the barges and readjusted all the fasts, including those from the Conners’ barge to the pier. After the drilling out was commenced again, the fasts from the barge either rendered, or carried away. All six barges went with the current. Eventually the barge careened, dumped her cargo of flour and sank.
Carroll Towing could have kept the barge afloat but no one was on board to observe that she was leaking. The bargee had left the vessel 21 hours earlier.
Plaintiff brought this lawsuit alleging that Carroll Towing’s negligence with the mooring lines caused the barge to sink. Carroll Towing in turn claimed that plaintiff was contributorily negligent because its employee was not present to prevent the accident. At trial, the trial court divided the damages according to the admiralty rule because it found contributory negligence because plaintiff’s employee was not on the barge.
Issue
- If the magnitude of the risk exceeds the utility of the conduct, is there a duty of care to protect others from harm?
Holding and Rule of Law
- Yes. When the magnitude of the risk exceeds the utility of the conduct, there is a duty of care to protect others from harm.
There is no set rule to determine if the owner of a barge is liable for damage to other vessels if the barge breaks away from its moorings in the absence of a bargee or other attendant. The owner’s duty to protect against resulting injuries if a vessel breaks from its moorings is a function of three variables. We must look at the probability that the barge will break away, the magnitude of the injuries if such an event occurs, and the precautions that can be taken to prevent such events.
The bargee must go ashore at times even though he lives on board and his absence may not always be a cause for liability. In this case however the bargee was gone without excuse for 21 hours. The utility of not providing a watchman during normal working hours in a harbor busy with activity exceeds the magnitude of the risk.
The probability that the barge would get loose and strike another barge in a crowded harbor is more than a negligible factor and the magnitude of resulting injury that could be sustained by not acting is very significant. Under these facts, there was a breach of duty in not having someone on the barge during normal business hours.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.