Legal Opinion · Dissent

Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Pitney the Eureka No. 110. The St. Charles

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided March 20, 1951No. 21877_1Published

1DissentFrank, Circuit Judge

*670I agree as to the liability of libellant. I dissent because I think the railroad (i. e., the railroad trustees) should be held liable over, by way of indemnity, to libellant. The wreck statute imposed a non-delegable duty on libellant to mark the wreck. But I think the tug Allentown, owned by the railroad, by not discharging its duty to libellant, caused libellant to be liable to the vessels injured by the unmarked wreck.

The tug undertook to tow the barge and therefore assumed obligations to the barge. That it did so gratuitously is not material ;1 especially is this so, because the railroad…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Burris v. American Chicle Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
  2. King v. Red Star Towing & Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API