The Lucille
District Court, S.D. Alabama
In Admiralty. Suit for collision.
1Opinion of the Court
TOULMIN, District Judge.
The fact of collision between a moored vessel and one moving being shown, the burden of proof is upon the one moving to show that it was free from fault; and it must repel the presumption of its negligence or suffer the damages incurred. The Brady (D. C.) 24 Fed. 300; The City of Augusta (D. C.) 30 Fed. 844; Spencer on Marine Collisions, § 94, p. 225; Id. § 120, p. 257; The Virginia Ehrman, 97 U. S. 309, 24 L. Ed. 890; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943; Inland & S. Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 659, 11 Sup. Ct. 653, 35 L. Ed. 270.. The…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- The OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. TolsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- The BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- The" Virginia Ehrman" and The" Agnese"Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- The Granite StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Alaska S. S. Co. v. Inland Navigation Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
- The AdventuressDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1914
- MAT Systems, Inc. v. Atchison Properties, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2010
- Ford Motor Co. v. Bradley Transp. Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1947
- Louisville & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. United Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.