Loud v. The Doris Eckhoff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““&o far as the proper navigation of the tow itself is concerned, the law is abundantly settled that she is bound to follow the guidance of the tug, to keep in her wake, and conform to her directions. The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494 , 24 L. Ed. 146 . This the schooner did. The district judge, however, held that the master and crew of the schooner were participating in the navigation, and in fault for not controlling the movements of the tug to the extent of requiring her to proceed in mid-river, either by ordering her to do so, or by endeavoring to swing her over in that direction by altering the helm of the Flint irrespective of the heading of the tug; that there was ‘at least an acquiescence on the part of the master of the schooner in the illegal course taken by the tug;’ and that as he was present, with his crew on board, steering after the tug, he must be held to have participated in the navigation of that course. We do not find that thife proposition is supported by the authorities. The tug was, in fact, under the command and direction of her own master, and received no orders or direction from those on the Flint. On the contrary, those on the tow received and obeyed orders from the tug. We are unable to distinguish this case from that of The John Fraser, 21 How. 184 , 16 L. Ed. 106 . In that case the Fraser was in tow of the steamboat General Clinch, which navigated with her • into such dangerous proximity to an anchored vessel that, upon casting off her hawser, the Fraser w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Violetta

2. ““Oases arise, undoubtedly, when both the tow and the tug are jointly liable for the consequences of a collision; as when those in charge of the respective vessels jointly participate in their control and management, and the master or'crew of both vessels are either deficient in skill, omit to take due care, or are guilty of negligence in their navigation. Other cases may well be imagined when the tow alone would be responsible; as when the tug is employed by the master or owners of the tow as the mere motive power to propel their vessels from one point to another, and; both vessels are exclusively under the control, direction, and management, of the master and crew of the tow. Fault in that state of the case cannot be imputed to the tug, provided she was properly equipped and seaworthy for the business in which she was engaged; and if she was the property of third persons, her owners cannot be held responsible for the want of skill, negligence, or mismanagement of the master and crew of the other vessel, for the reason that they are not the agents of the owners of the tug, and her owners in the case supposed do not sustain towards those intrusted with the navigation of the vessel the relation of the principal. But whenever the tug, under the charge of her own master and crew, and in the usual and ordinary course of such an employment, undertakes to transport another vessel, which, for the time being, has neither her master nor crew on board, from one point to another, over wa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Violetta