Friday, September 12, 2008

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (a.k.a. damaged dock)

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
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
Issue:
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
Rule: While ordinary rules of property are suspended by forces beyond human control, in this case, the defendants purposefully attached to the dock, knowing it was likely to cause damage. Def. may use dock in such instances but must pay for the privilege with reasonable compensation.

2 comments:

Dr. A said...

You seem to be learning an awful lot about docks. I never would have guessed them to be such an illustrative point of law.

Christie said...

Nor I, my friend. Coming up a botched vasectomy and a hairy hand courtesy of Contracts.