US v. Carroll Towing 159 F. 2D 169

U.S. v Carroll Towing

CASE BRIEF

CAPTION / CITATION: U.S. v. Carroll Towing 159 F. 2D 169 (2d. Cir. 1947)

The Connors Company owned a barge. It was being towed by a tugboat owned by Carroll Towing (and operated by Grace Line). Carroll Towing towed the barge in a negligent manner. It broke free, drifted around for a while, hit another barge and then sank.

FACTS: The trial court found Grace Line and Carroll Towing liable for negligence in the incident. Carroll argued that Connors was partially responsible, and therefore should bear some of the costs (contributory negligence) because the Connor's barge did not have anyone on board during the tow. If there was someone on board, they could have mitigated the damage and prevented the barge from sinking. Connors argued that putting a guy on every barge just in case there is an accident was expensive and not worth the cost.

COURT DECISION: The Appellate Court reduced the damages.

COURT RATIONALE: The appellate Court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that the barge would break free; therefore Connors needed to take reasonable care to mitigate potential damages. The court created an algebraic formula for determining care. They found that if (Probability of injury) x (Potential liability) > (Costs of the extra burden), then you have a duty to take on that extra burden. This reasoning is sometimes known as the risk-utility formula. The Court found that in this case the amount of damage from the crash multiplied by the chance that the accident would occur was a lot more than the salary Connors would have to pay a guy to stay on the boat just in case. Therefore, based on the risk-utility formula, they were negligent.

DISSENTING OPINION: