DIXILYN DRILLING CORP.
v.
CRESCENT TOWING & SALVAGE CO.
Per Curiam.
Respondent Crescent Towing Company contracted with petitioner Dixilyn Drilling Corporation to tow Dixilyn’s barge Julie Ann down the Mississippi River. While being towed, the barge collided with a bridge, and the bridge owners filed a libel in the United States District Court claiming damages from the tower and the barge owner. These two jointly paid the claim but continued to litigate, as between themselves, the question of which was liable. The district judge after a full trial found that the collision and the resulting damage were due solely to the negligence of the tower. He also rejected the tower’s argument that regardless of which was negligent the barge owner should pay the damages because it had contracted to assume liability for all damages arising out of the towage including “any damage claims urged by third parties.” The judge held that the barge owner had not agreed to assume liability for damages caused by the tower’s own negligence. On review the Court of Appeals held that it need not decide the “extremely difficult” factual question of who was negligent because, in the court's view, the barge owner had agreed in the towage contract to assume liability for all losses arising out of the towage, including those caused by the tower’s negligence. Holding such a contract to be valid, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment.
In treating as valid a contract which exempts the tower from liability for its own negligence, the Court of Appeals’ holding is squarely in conflict with our holding in Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U. S. 85 (1955), and Boston Metals Co. v. The Winding Gulf, 349 U. S. 122 (1955). The Court of Appeals thought that the present case was distinguishable because the peculiar hazards of towage and other factors brought it within the ambit of Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. River Terminals Corp., 360 U. S. 411 (1959). But Southwestern Sugar is not applicable here, for in that case the Court merely preferred to give the Interstate Commerce Commission an opportunity to rule on an exculpatory clause which was part of a tariff filed with the Commission. We adhere to the rule laid down in Bisso and Winding Gulf and hold that the Court of Appeals was in error in failing to follow it. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to that court to consider other questions.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
While I would prefer to see Bisso reconsidered, believing, with deference, that it was wrongly decided, I nevertheless join the opinion of the Court. Certainty in the law governing commercial transactions of this kind is an overriding consideration which would not be promoted by opening the Bisso rule to indeterminate exceptions in instances where, unlike Southwestern Sugar, no functions of a regulatory agency are involved.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
THE Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972)…not responsible for defaults and/or'errors in the navigation of the tow” and (2) that “[d}amages suffered by the towed object are in any case for account of its Owners.” Under our decision in Dixilyn Drilling Corp v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U. S. 697, 698, “a contract which exempts the tower from liability for its own negligence” is not enforceable, though there is evidence, in the present record that it is enforceable in England. That policy was first announced in Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp…1 / 3
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. & Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Knox Homes Corp., 343 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1965)…, 274 F. 2d 36. Our earlier opinion prescribing primary jurisdiction reference to the ICC was reported at 5 Cir., 1958, 253 F. 2d 922. . The Bisso holding was subsequently reiterated in Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 1963, 372 U.S. 697, 83 S.Ct. 967, 10 L.Ed.2d 78; see on remand to this Court, 1963, 324 F. 2d 272, opinion withdrawn and rehearing granted, 1964, 329 F. 2d 754. . In tabular form the verified exhibits reflected as to each carload the point of origin, date, car number…
-
Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. The Mobile Drilling Barge or Vessel Known As MR. Charlie, 424 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1970)…ult) as in American Agric. Chem. Co. v. Tampa Armature Works, 5 Cir. 1963, 315 F. 2d 856, or to cover the negligence of the indemnitee as in Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Dixilyn Drilling Corp., 5 Cir. 1962, 303 F. 2d 237, rev’d on other grounds, 372 U.S. 697, 83 S.Ct. 967, 10 L.Ed.2d 78. Rather, ODECO was to furnish insurance only for its own negligence. Therefore, we find without merit SIGNAL’S argument that because the parties negotiated a contract price which reflects that ODECO was to bear the [*693…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1955)
- Sw. Sugar & Molasses Co., Inc. v. River Terminals Corp., 360 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1959)
- Boston Metals Co. v. THE Winding Gulf, 349 U.S. 122 (U.S. 1955)