Legal Opinion

Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Navigazione Libera Triestina, S. A.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 8, 1929No. 204PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The plaintiff had the burden to prove actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, and was not entitled to a verdict simply by showing that the ship went ahead after Healey gave an order to put the engines astern. There was no quick movement and immediate collision a£ter the order was given. About five minutes were available in which to stop the ship. His order and the subsequent movement of the ship were important things to be considered on the question of negligence, but the request made the liability of the defendant dependent upon these two…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. ConverseSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. The ChinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. Maguire v. Middlesex RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  4. Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
  5. McDuffee's Admx. v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, SADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
  2. Evans v. United Arab Shipping Co. S.A.G.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
  3. Chesapeake Bay Bridge & Tunnel District v. LauritzenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
  4. Union Shipping & Trading Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  5. Chesapeake Bay Bridge And Tunnel District v. J. LauritzenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API