109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (1910)
Justice O'Brien delivered opinion
Facts:
- Def.'s steamship, Reynolds, was moored to plain's dock in Duluth to unload cargo on Nov. 27, 1905
- Storm hit with winds at 50 mph
- Navigation in waters suspended from approx. 10pm until morning
- Once unloading was completed, Reynolds unable to get tugboat to take off dock bec. of storm
- Lines held steamship to dock, and dock damaged as a result of steamship slamming into it repeatedly
- damage amounted to $500
Is a boat moored to a dock during a storm liable for its damages to the dock?
Holding: Yes. The defendant is liable.
Reasoning:
Note: Ct. states only question for jury was the amount of damages which plaintiffs were entitled to recover, but no complaint was made on that score
Court says:
- Def. chose to keep boat attached to dock to preserve ship at expense of the dock
- Def. are responsible to pay plain. for injury done to dock
- Ploof v. Putnam - if boat had remained attached and dock destroyed, most likely boat owner would have had to pay damages
- Not a case where life or prop. was menaced by object of thing belonging to plain. that the destruction of would been necessary to prevent a disaster
- Def. prudently availed itself of plain's prop. for the purpose of preserving its own more valuable prop.
- Plain is entitled to compensation for damages done
Judgment: Affirmed
Opinions:
Justice Lewis dissented
- If boat lawfully in position at time storm hit and master could not move it w/o sustaining damaging vessel, any harm done to dock was by accident
- Def. had permission to dock to unload by plain., which entered them into contract
- plain enters into such contract assuming risk of damage to dock if boat moored gets caught in storm
2 comments:
You seem to be learning an awful lot about docks. I never would have guessed them to be such an illustrative point of law.
Nor I, my friend. Coming up a botched vasectomy and a hairy hand courtesy of Contracts.
Post a Comment