#Cinders delivery trial

The carfloat by an exercise of greater care rode out the storm safely. Had he done so, and put out more lines, he might well have averted the disaster. It seems to us that the bargee neglected his duty and should have stayed at his post under such grave circumstances. We have a case where the carfloat, by putting out an additional line, completely weathered the hurricane, whereas the bargee abandoned his scow under most dangerous weather conditions which resulted in the parting of five, if not all, of her six lines.

#Cinders delivery trial

The trial judge made no findings as to the proved fact that the bargee left his scow when there was a gale blowing and the weather reports showed a hurricane was soon to be encountered if it had not already set in.

This was the testimony of the respondent and it is supported by the strongest inherent probabilities. During the height of the storm the wind was blowing right up the slip and carrying the scow forward ward so that she was riding on the front of the float. It seems impossible to suppose that a single five and one-half inch line would alone hold a heavy scow carrying a considerable load in an unprecedented hurricane which had been strong enough to part the other five lines. There was some testimony that one of her line still remained fastened, but that testimony was doubtful and was so unlikely as to be unbelievable. In spite of the hurricane the carfloat kept to its mooring, but the scow was stove in and sunk, and at least five of her six lines were broken. The carfloat was securely fastened by stout lines and as the storm increased another line was added. Still later it blew at very high velocity. The wind reached 81 miles an hour at 7:27 P.M., and at 7:39 P.M. the wind was between 23 and 25 miles per hour between 6 and 7 P.M. 14 lay at the pier at the foot of 52nd Street, Brooklyn, on September 14, 1944, where she was tied fast that later on during the same day the respondent Bush Terminal Company moored its carfloat #566 to the same pier close to the prior mooring of the scow that during a storm on the night of that day, and the early morning of September 15, the carfloat 'was caused to collide with Scow #14' that as a result of the collision, the scow was 'caused to be stove in and sunk' and that the collision and the sinking of the scow 'were solely due to the negligence of the respondent.' On the morning of September 14th the libellant had warning of the approach of a hurricane. The trial judge found that libellant's scow No. We think the evidence was insufficient to support the libellant's claim and that the decree must be reversed and the libel dismissed. The court below granted an interlocutory decree in favor of the libellant and referred the case to a Commissioner to report the amount of the damages. 14 through the alleged negligence of the respondent, Bush Terminal Company. The libellant brought this suit in admiralty to recover damages for injury to its scow No.