The barge Anna C, loaded with flour and chartered by the Pennsylvania Railroad, was moored in a six-barge tier off a Manhattan pier. The Grace Line had chartered the tug Carroll from Carroll Towing. To remove a barge from an adjacent tier, the Carroll's captain sent its deckhand and a Grace Line harbormaster to inspect and adjust the Anna C's mooring lines before casting off a line connecting the two tiers.
After the deckhand and harbormaster declared the fasts satisfactory, the Carroll released the connecting line and backed away. The six-barge tier promptly broke loose. The Anna C struck a tanker at Pier 51, whose propeller punctured her hull. Although the Carroll and a Grace Line tug could have pumped out and saved the barge had they known she was leaking, the Anna C's bargee had been absent since the preceding evening. The barge sank, spilling her flour cargo.
The district court held Carroll Towing liable, subject to limitation of liability, for the cargo loss, salvage expenses, and half the barge damage. It held Grace Line primarily liable for the other half of the barge damage and the Pennsylvania Railroad secondarily liable. Carroll Towing and the Railroad appealed; Grace Line contested liability; and all sought to attribute some fault to the Anna C.
Issue #1
Whether Grace Line was liable for the negligent inspection and approval of the Anna C's mooring lines.
Holding
Yes. Grace Line was liable because its harbormaster had authority to assess the sufficiency of the fasts and was deputed, together with the Carroll's deckhand, to decide whether it was safe to cast off the connecting line.
Reasoning
The harbormaster's own testimony showed that his regular responsibilities included tying up barges, inspecting the lines of inside barges, and adding lines when necessary. That evidence established that he possessed authority to judge whether the Anna C's fasts were adequate.
The trial court found that the Carroll's captain directed the deckhand and the harbormaster to cast off the connecting line only after ascertaining that it was safe to do so. That finding meant that both men were entrusted with the decision whether the Anna C's moorings could safely bear the load of the tier.
The fact that the deckhand shared responsibility did not excuse the harbormaster or Grace Line. Both the tug interests and Grace Line could be held responsible for the negligent approval of inadequate moorings.
Issue #2
Whether the Conners Company was contributorily at fault because the Anna C's bargee was absent when the barge was damaged and sank.
Holding
Yes, but only as to the avoidable sinking damages. The bargee's absence did not cause the flotilla to break loose, but it prevented timely discovery and mitigation of the hull breach.
Reasoning
The court would not speculate that the bargee's presence would have prevented the breakaway. The deckhand and harbormaster had undertaken to inspect the fasts, and there was no basis to believe that they would have responded to a protest by the bargee. Thus, the Anna C could recover fully for the initial collision damages caused when the tanker propeller pierced her hull.
Once the barge was punctured, however, a bargee on board would have inspected the damage promptly and summoned assistance. The Carroll and Grace Line's tug had pumps and could have kept the Anna C afloat long enough to beach her and save the cargo. The bargee's absence therefore contributed to the later sinking and cargo loss.
The court rejected a categorical rule that a bargee's absence is either always negligent or never negligent. The required level of care depends on the probability that the vessel will break away, the gravity of resulting harm, and the burden of precautions.
Issue #3
What standard determines whether the burden of keeping a bargee aboard justified treating the bargee's absence as negligent.
Holding
A barge owner is negligent when the burden of adequate precautions is less than the probability of harm multiplied by the likely loss; on these facts, that standard required a bargee aboard during daylight working hours absent an excuse.
Reasoning
Judge Hand expressed the negligence inquiry algebraically: liability depends on whether the burden of precautions, B, is less than the probability of injury, P, multiplied by the expected loss, L. The formula did not create a mechanical rule; it stated the ordinary balancing underlying reasonable care.
The risk of a breakaway changes with circumstances. A storm, a crowded harbor, and frequent movement of barges increase both the chance of an accident and the seriousness of its consequences. Conversely, requiring a bargee to remain aboard at every hour would impose a real burden, because a bargee cannot be made a prisoner on the vessel.
Here, the Anna C was in an active wartime New York harbor, during short January daylight hours, where barges were constantly drilled in and out. The bargee had been gone for about twenty-one hours and offered a fabricated account that supported the inference that he lacked an excuse. Under those conditions, reasonable care required his presence during daylight working hours.
Issue #4
How should liability for collision damages and sinking damages be allocated among Carroll Towing, Grace Line, and the Anna C's owner.
Holding
The Anna C could recover all collision damages from the negligent tug interests, but the sinking damages were divided equally among the Anna C's owner, Carroll Towing, and Grace Line, subject to Carroll Towing's limitation fund and the procedural posture of the separate actions.
Reasoning
Because the negligent inspection by the deckhand and harbormaster caused the breakaway and collision, Carroll Towing and Grace Line bore the collision damages. The Conners Company was not at fault for that initial injury, so it was entitled to a full recovery for the hull damage caused by the tanker propeller.
The sinking was different because the bargee's unjustified absence was a contributing cause. Under the admiralty division-of-damages approach applied by the court, the sinking damages were apportioned one-third to each of the three responsible interests: Conners, Carroll Towing, and Grace Line.
The court accordingly reversed and remanded to modify the decrees. In Conners's libel against the Railroad, with Grace Line impleaded, Conners could receive full collision damages and one-half of sinking damages from Grace Line, with the Railroad secondarily liable. In Carroll Towing's limitation proceeding, the remaining claims were to be adjusted so that, if the limitation fund proved sufficient, Carroll Towing and Grace Line each ultimately bore one-half of collision damages and one-third of sinking damages.