Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

In re Kinsman Transit Co.

(1964)

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 338 F.2d 708

tl;dr:

A ship that broke from the dock ended up crashing into the city's bridge and causing flooding damage; Court holds that the ship's crew, the owner of the dock, and the city can all be held liable.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for In re Kinsman Transit Co.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the In re Kinsman Transit Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingIn re Kinsman Transit Co. case brief facts & holding

Facts:Kinsman was the owner of the ship Shiras. The crew...

Holding:The Court of Appeals affirmed.The Court found that in the...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the In re Kinsman Transit Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
In re Kinsman Transit Co. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

This case involves six appeals from an interlocutory decree in admiralty that determined liability for a series of incidents on the navigable portion of the Buffalo River. The appeals court found Continental and the Shiras at fault for the collision, but Kinsman's liability was limited due to lack of knowledge of the Shiras' faults. The Tewksbury and her owner were not at fault and were entitled to exoneration. The City of Buffalo was at fault for failing to raise the Michigan Avenue Bridge, but not for other actions. Damages were to be recovered equally from Continental and Kinsman, subject to Kinsman's right to limit liability. The City, Continental, and Kinsman were held equally liable for damages to others resulting from the disaster at the bridge, subject to Kinsman's limitation of liability. The City was solely liable for damages sustained by the Shiras and Continental as operator of the Concrete Elevator. The appeals court focused on the negligence of Kinsman and Continental as proximately contributing causes of the disaster. The lower court erred in not holding the shipkeeper of the MacGilvray Shiras liable for failing to release the devil's claws, which could have prevented the accident. The liability of the parties involved in the collision and the damages caused to the Steamer Druckenmiller should be considered. The actions of the bridge crew and their potential liability in the collision should also be considered. The extent of the damage caused by the collapse of the bridge towers should be considered in determining liability for the collision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the In re Kinsman Transit Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: MOORE, Circuit Judge
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Judge Moore agrees with Judge Friendly's opinion on the limitation of Kinsman's liability, the extent of liability of the City of Buffalo, Continental, and Kinsman for damages suffered by various parties, and the division of damages. However, Judge Moore dissents on the idea of creating a judicial insurance company to compensate all those who have suffered damages and the suggestion that losses from negligence should be borne by taxpayers rather than the innocent victims. The author argues that before financial liability is imposed, there should be a showing of legal liability, and negligence suits should not be simplified to only require proof of financial condition. The author accepts the finding of liability for normal consequences in the case of the bridge demolition in Buffalo, but notes that bridges are not meant to function as dams, and the damages were allowed without specification of their nature.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the In re Kinsman Transit Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the In re Kinsman Transit Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

In re Kinsman Transit Co.

Chat for In re Kinsman Transit Co.
brief-628
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.