TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

A/r Seljan, Paul Jebsen and M/v Stolt Sildra v. Pioneer Leasing Corp.

A/R SELJAN, Paul Jebsen and M/V STOLT SILDRA, Appellants, v. PIONEER LEASING CORP. Et Al., Appellees

A/r Seljan, Paul Jebsen & M/v Stolt Sildra v. Pioneer Leasing Corp., 406 F.2d 768 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 5, 1969
Docket
No. 26095
Judges
Goldberg, Morgan, Lieb
Citations
406 F.2d 768

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s determination of liability in a marine collision which occurred at Lynchburg Bend in the Houston Ship Channel. The factual and legal issues center on the actions of three vessels: the outbound M/V GEORGIA GIRL (a tug pushing two barges carrying fertilizer), the outbound M/V STOLT SILDRA (a loaded tanker), and the inbound SS EVILIZ (a dry cargo vessel). Through a misunderstanding of whistle signals and corresponding maneuvers of the several vessels, a minor collision involving the SS EVILIZ and the lead barge of the M/V GEORGIA GIRL flotilla occurred. In viewing the events transpiring down stream, the M/V STOLT SILDRA, fearing that the damaged barge contained flammable chemicals, put her engines full ahead and attempted to “thread the needle” to get by the congested situation. This action, however, forced the SS EVILIZ to full ahead in order to avoid a collision with the tanker. By taking such action, the SS EVILIZ was able to narrowly avoid a collision with the M/V STOLT SILDRA, but was unable to avoid ramming the barge again. This time the barge was so severely damaged that it sank.

The District Court determined that the actions of the M/V STOLT SILDRA and the M/V GEORGIA GIRL were the proximate cause of the collisions and the ensuing damage, thereby exonerating the SS EVILIZ. The finding of fault is a fact issue to which the clearly erroneous rule is applicable. The record is replete with evidence to support the District Court’s determination of fault. The ruling of the District Court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11981: 219762026peak 1981 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list