From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jul 11, 1949
176 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1949)

Opinion

No. 256, Docket 21317.

Argued June 15, 1949.

Decided July 11, 1949.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Libel under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et seq., and/or the Public Vessels Act by Henjes Marine, Inc., to recover for damage sustained by the libellant's tug while assisting in docking a vessel owned by the United States. From a final decree dismissing the libel, D.C., 79 F. Supp. 945, the libellant appeals. Affirmed.

Purdy, Lamb Catoggio, New York City, (Edmund F. Lamb, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

J. Vincent Keogh, U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. and Burlingham, Veeder, Clark Hupper, New York City (Adrian J. O'Kane, New York City of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN and CHASE, Circuit Judges, and J. JOSEPH SMITH, District Judge.


The facts are stated in the trial court's opinion, D.C., 79 F. Supp. 945, and need not be again recited. On conflicting testimony the court found that the docking operation was conducted in a normal and acceptable manner by the ship and the docking pilot; that the tug "Barbara Henjes," which was stationed on the ship's starboard bow, remained too long at this station despite warnings from the ship's bridge; and that the sole cause of the tug being crushed between the ship and the pier was her own faulty handling and maneuvering. The appeal raises only questions of fact as to which the testimony of the docking pilot and the captain of the tug were in direct conflict. The appellant urges that the tug's version of the accident should have been accepted because it was corroborated by admissions of the master of the ship whose testimony was taken by deposition. Although the deposition tends to support the tug's story as to the angle at which the ship approached the pier, it contains nothing which would justify us in holding that the crucial findings of the trial judge were clearly erroneous. On the contrary, the master's deposition supports such findings; he testified that the tug was ordered to leave her station on the starboard bow "but she didn't back out quick enough"; she "didn't take the opportunity she had to get out of the way in time."

Decree affirmed.


Summaries of

Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jul 11, 1949
176 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1949)
Case details for

Henjes Marine, Inc. v. United States

Case Details

Full title:HENJES MARINE, Inc. v. UNITED STATES. The BARBARA HENJES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jul 11, 1949

Citations

176 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1949)

Citing Cases

Kosnac v. the Norcuba

Although the doctrine of last clear chance is recognized in admiralty, The Cornelius Vanderbilt, 2 Cir.,…