Legal Opinion
Ernest Construction Co. v. The Tug Commodore
District Court, S.D. Alabama
Decided December 10, 1968No. Civ. A. No. 4553-67PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DANIEL HOLCOMBE THOMAS, Chief Judge.
This suit is for damages caused by a collision of the tug, TIMBER, against certain pilings being constructed by the plaintiff, Ernest Construction Company. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the amount of $2,186.51, which reflects the total costs incurred by the plaintiff to replace and repair the damaged pilings.
The answer of the defendant admits the collision, denies negligence and asserts that the collision was caused by a latent defect in the tug’s machinery and sets up the defense of inevitable accident. Alternatively, the defendant claims that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- The OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc. And Brown & Root, Inc., Successor to Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc. v. Zapata Off-Shore CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Waterman S. S. Corp. v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1946
- Mrs. Edith Boudoin v. J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Rice v. Brooklyn Ash Removal Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Norfolk & Western Company v. United States of America, and Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Solet v. M/V Capt. H. v. DufreneDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1969
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1971
- American Oil Company v. M/T LACONDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1973
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. M/V Ciudad De TurboDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.