TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Alola

The Alola, 228 F. 1006 (E.D. Va. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, E.D. Virginia · Federal District Courts
Decided
December 16, 1915
Judges
Waddill
Citations
228 F. 10061915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1045
Headnotes
Collision 25 — Limitation or Liability — Fault in Management or Vessel. The owner of a motorboat, properly manned and equipped, is entitled, under Eev. St. § 4283 (Comp. St. 1913, § 8021), to a limitation of liability on account of a collision which occurred without his privity or knowledge, as under said statute the negligence of those in charge of its navigation cannot be imputed to him. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Collision, Cent. Dig. § 21; Dee. Dig. 25.]
Summary
In Admiralty. Suits by I. W. Haywood, administrator of the estate of George W. Haywood, deceased, against H. C. Burdick, owner of the gasoline motorboat Alóla, and against said vessel. Decree for respondent in first suit, and for libelant in second suit.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Waddill

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WADDILL, District Judge.

The collision in this case occurred in Norfolk harbor, on the 9th day of August, 1915, about 9 o’clock in the forenoon, between the gasoline motorboat Alóla, 45 feet 9 inches long *1007 and 9 feet 8 inches beam, and a small rowboat; the motorboat running into and capsizing the rowboat, and libelant’s decedent was drowned.

The question presented on the testimony adduced before the court, and arguments of counsel thereon, is whether or not the owner of the motorboat is entitled to a limitation of liability under the act of Congress providing therefor in certain cases; the vessel’s responsibility for the accident being in effect conceded.

Respondent relies on the provisions of section 4283 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. 1913, § 8021) for his exemption from liability. He insists that the vessel was properly manned and equipped, and, while it is true the decedent lost his life in the collision, that it occurred from causes entirely without the privity or knowledge of the respondent, as owner of the motorboat; whereas, the libelant insists that such collision was brought about by the acts and omissions of those in charge of the motorboat, agents of the respondent, for whose negligence he is primarily liable, or whose faults are- imputable to him.

The conclusion of the court on the testimony adduced is that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability claimed’ by him. The evidence establishes that the vessel was properly manned and equipped at the time of the accident; that the same occurred without the respondent’s privity or knowledge, and hence he is not liable for the same. Respondent, under the act of Congress in question, is only chargeable for his own willful and negligent acts, and the negligence of those in charge of the navigation of the vessel, to which he was not privy, and of which he had no knowledge, will not be imputed to him. The Republic, 61 Fed. 109, 112 , 9 C. C. A. 386 , and cases cited; The Tommy, 151 Fed. 570, 573 , 81 C. C. A. 50 , and cases cited.

A decree maj' he entered holding those in charge of the navigation of the motorboat to be in fault, and decreeing in favor of the libel-lant for the amount received from the sale of the motorboat in these proceedings, and declaring the owner personally entitled to exemption from personal liability on account of this accident.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1917: 11922: 21923: 11925: 11928: 21937: 11942: 11967: 119172026peak 1922 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coryell v. Phipps128 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1942)
  2. Petition of Liebler19 F. Supp. 829 (W.D.N.Y. 1937)
  3. The Oneida282 F. 238 (2d Cir. 1922)
  4. Pocomoke Guano Co. v. Eastern Transp. Co.285 F. 7 (4th Cir. 1922)
  5. Petition of Porter272 F. Supp. 282 (S.D. Tex. 1967)
  6. Wessel, Duval & Co. v. Charleston Lighterage & Transfer Co.25 F.2d 126 (E.D.S.C. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Petition of Porter272 F. Supp. 282 (S.D. Tex. 1967)
  2. Coryell v. Phipps128 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1942)
  3. Petition of Liebler19 F. Supp. 829 (W.D.N.Y. 1937)
  4. Wessel, Duval & Co. v. Charleston Lighterage & Transfer Co.25 F.2d 126 (E.D.S.C. 1928)
  5. The Muriel25 F.2d 505 (W.D. Wash. 1928)
  6. The North Star3 F.2d 1010 (D. Mass. 1925)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
The Republic, 61 F. 109 (2d Cir. 1894) 56
The Tommy, 151 F. 570 (2d Cir. 1907) 18

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