Tort Law

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

159 F.2d 169

Facts

• The barge Anna C was moored with several other vessels in New York Harbour.
• The Pennsylvania Railroad had chartered the barge, while Conners Marine Company owned it.
• Carroll Towing Company operated a tug engaged in moving another barge from the group.
• During the manoeuvre, the arrangement of mooring lines was altered.
• The Anna C broke free from its moorings.
• It drifted through the harbour and collided with another vessel.
• The barge later sank.
• Its cargo, which included flour belonging to the United States, was damaged or lost.
• No bargee or responsible attendant was aboard the Anna C during the relevant daytime working hours.
• Claims were brought against Carroll Towing and other parties involved in the harbour operation.
• The barge owner argued that it was not negligent merely because no attendant was present.
• Judge Learned Hand examined whether reasonable care required a bargee to remain aboard when the harbour was active.

• Whether the absence of the bargee amounted to contributory negligence.
• How the burden of taking precautions should be compared with the probability and gravity of harm.
• Whether the barge owner had to share responsibility with the tug operators.

• Reasonable care may be analysed by comparing:
o B — the burden or cost of taking the precaution;
o P — the probability that the accident will occur; and
o L — the gravity of the resulting loss.
• Failure to take a precaution may constitute negligence where:
B < P × L
• The formula does not require exact mathematical calculation.
• It expresses a structured balancing of:
o practical burden;
o likelihood of harm; and
o seriousness of foreseeable consequences.
• The reasonable precaution varies according to the time, place and circumstances.
• A precaution unnecessary in a quiet or inactive harbour may be required during crowded daytime operations.

• Barges moored in an active harbour could be affected when tug operators rearranged lines.
• The probability that a barge might break free was therefore real during ordinary working hours.
• The likely consequences were serious.
• A loose barge could:
o collide with other vessels;
o sink;
o damage its cargo;
o obstruct navigation; or
o create costly salvage operations.
• The burden of keeping a bargee aboard during the relevant daytime period was comparatively modest.
• A bargee could inspect lines, raise an alarm, pump water, identify leaks and take emergency measures.
• Because the burden of attendance was lower than the combined probability and gravity of the potential loss, reasonable care required someone to remain aboard.
• The negligence of the tug operators did not eliminate the barge owner’s contribution.
• Had a bargee been present, he might have detected the danger, summoned assistance or reduced the resulting damage.
• The owner therefore had to bear a proportion of the loss.
• Judge Hand’s formula supplied a rational explanation for why failure to take an inexpensive precaution against a serious risk constitutes breach.

• The Second Circuit held that the barge owner was contributorily negligent because no bargee was aboard the Anna Cduring the relevant working hours.
• The tug operators also remained responsible for their negligent handling of the moorings.
• Liability and damages were allocated among the responsible parties.
• The decision produced the influential Learned Hand formula for assessing breach.