Rice v. The Marion A. C. Meseck
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The damage to the tug was the result of forcing the barge into place against the ice. The trial court judge did not find that no one was negligent nor that the scow had contributed to the damage. He exculpated the tug on the theory that the directions and advice given by the steamship company’s employees insulated the tug from liability. That theory is untenable. The tug owed the scow the duty “to do the work in a seamanlike manner.” 1 It may be that the steamship company and its employees, had they been sued by the libellant, would have been held liable; but that fact…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Navigazione Generale Italiana v. TimminsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Quinn v. Southgate Nelson CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- The ProcidaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1917
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Carroll Towing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- In re the Complaint of Walker's Midstream Fuel & Service Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1986
- Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1956
- Todd Shipyards Corporation v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957