57 F.1d 667 - Lane v. The A. R. Robinson — 57 F. 667

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1932

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶11. Towage — Tug not a Common Carrier — Negligence.

¶2. The contract oí towage does not subject a tug to the liability of a common carrier. She only undertakes to exercise ordinary care and skill.

¶33. Same — Loss—Presumption op Negligence.

¶4Proof oí a loss suffered by a tow does not raise a presumption of negligence against the tug in the absence of additional affirmative evidence. The Webb, 14 Wall. 406, followed.

¶5In Admiralty. Buit iu rem by J. H. Lane against the steamer A. R. Robinson to recover the value of part of a raft of piles lost while being towed by said steamer.

¶6Dismissed for failure of proof to establish negligence.

¶7Preston, Carr & Preston, for libelant.

¶8Allen & Powell, for claimant.

¶9HANFORD, District Judge.

¶10That there was a contract to tow a raft of piles from Brown’s Bay to Seattle; that the steamer did tow said raft; and that more than one-half of the. piles that were in the raft when it started escaped therefrom, and were lost, during the passage, — are facts in this case. The claim of the libelant against the tug for damages is based upon a charge that by hauling too suddenly 'at starting, by running too .rapidly, by venturing to cross Puget sound when the weather was threatening, and by failure of the master to exercise good judgment in going ahead towards his destination after being caught by a strong wind and choppy sea, instead of changing his course and running for shelter, the Loss was caused by negligence or want of care and skill on the part of the master of the steamer. But to sustain this charge in either of the particulars mentioned by a fair preponderance of the evidence the libelant has failed. The proof is not sufficient to show with any degree of clearness the real cause of the loss.

¶11The authorities which I have consulted require me to hold that by a contract for towage service the tug does not become chargeable with the liability of a common carrier. She only undertakes to exercise ordinary care and skill in performing the service. Proof of a loss does not raise a presumption of negligence or want of ordinary care and skill, so as to entitle the injured party to damages, without additional affirmative evidence. The Webb, 14 Wall. 406. Libel dismissed.