# O'Brien Bros. v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · December 30, 1948 · 171 F.2d 586

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6901449

## Case

- **Full name:** O'BRIEN BROS., Inc. v. UNITED STATES THE CARBON LIGHT
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** December 30, 1948
- **Citations:** 171 F.2d 586; 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3318
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Frank
- **Judges:** Chase, Frank, Hand
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6901449

## Opinion text

FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The appellants attack the findings that the scow was seaworthy and that the scow overturned because leakage had accumulated during the loading to a level higher than the keelsons at the stern.
On the question of seaworthiness, the trial judge relied upon the testimony of the expert who indicated that the scow was seaworthy. We must accept this finding. Similarly, we must accept his finding, based on sufficient testimony, that the overturning was caused by the collection of water in the stern until the water-level was higher than the keelsons'.
The fact that she was seaworthy does not mean that the scow could be expected not to leak. The trial court found, from the uncontradicted testimony of appellee’s expert, that all wooden vessels leak, and that the leakage increases when the vessel is loaded. Appellant, experienced in handling scows, was chargeable with notice of some leakage; it was also chargeable with notice that the water running aft might easily rise above the keelsons, where it would be free to run from side to side, causing the scow to list and cargo to shift. Nevertheless, appellant failed to check for leakage or man the pumps.
As there was no captain aboard the scow, appellant had control of the scow and responsibility for its safety. “Upon seeing that the scow had no bargee on board, the dredging company was put to its choice: either to refuse to load her at all, unattended as she was, or to give her such attention as a competent bargee would have given.” F. E. Grauwiller Transportation Company v. Exner Sand & Gravel Corporation, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 90, 91 .
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6901449. Public record. Not legal advice.