United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

Brief Fact Summary.

People on the Carroll tugboat were negligent in adjusting the lines that held a barge in place, causing it to break loose and ram against a tanker. The tanker subsequently broke a hole in the Anna C, causing it to sink.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

If the owner of a barge is held liable for injuries to other vessels because her bargee was absent, damages to the owner’s barge must be reduced proportionately.

In these circumstances, the owner’s liability is determined by a function of three variables: (1) the probability that the owner’s barge will break away; (2) the seriousness of the resulting injury; and (3) the burden of taking adequate precautions against the barge breaking away.

In other words, the owner’s liability depends on whether the burden of taking adequate precautions (B) is less than the seriousness of the resulting injury (L)  multiplied by the probability of the barge breaking away (P), or whether B < P*L.

Facts.

Individuals aboard the Carroll tugboat were negligent in adjusting the lines that held Connors’ Anna C barge in place, causing it to break loose and ram against a tanker. The tanker subsequently broke a hole in the Anna C barge, causing it to sink.

Connors sued to recover the value of its lost cargo from Carroll. In turn, Carroll sought to reduce the damages because Connors’ bargee was absent from the Anna C. Evidence indicated that, had a bargee been present to sound a warning, other boats in the area would have helped keep the Anna C afloat. Additional evidence revealed that the bargee left at 5pm on January 3 and did not return until about 2pm the following day, or twenty-one hours later, with no legitimate excuse for his absence.

Issue.

Does the prolonged absence of Connors’ bargee during working hours render Connors partly liable for damages incurred in this circumstance?

Held.

Yes. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the allocation of damages.

The Court of Appeals held that it was a fair requirement that Connors should have had a bargee aboard during the working hours of daylight, such that Connors should be held partly liable for damages resulting to the other vessels after the Anna C barge broke loose.

Discussion.

While a bargee cannot be expected to stay on the barge 24/7, he ought to at a minimum have an excuse for not being on the barge during regular working hours. In this case, the bargee left the barge for about twenty-one hours with no legitimate excuse for his absence. Given that it was the middle of a war, it would be reasonable to worry about the care that went into taking the barges in and out of the harbor constantly.