Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.

CASE NAME	R. C. VINCENT and Another v. LAKE ERIE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
CITATION, DATE	Supreme Court of Minnesota
COURT	109 Minn. 456; 124 N.W. 221; 1910 Minn. LEXIS 588. January 14, 1910

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
TRIAL COURT:		APPEAL COURT (for appeal cases only):
PLAINTIFF	Vincent	APPELLANT	Lake Erie Transp. Co.
DEFENDANT	Lake Erie Transp. Co.	RESPONDENT	Vincent

DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS
"The steamship Reynolds, owned by the defendant, was for the purpose of discharging her cargo on November 27, 1905, moored to plaintiffs' dock in Duluth. While the unloading of the boat was taking place a storm from the northeast developed, which at about ten o'clock p.m., when the unloading was completed, had so grown in violence that the wind was then moving at fifty miles per hour and continued to increase during the night. There is some evidence that one, and perhaps two, boats were able to enter the harbor that night, but it is plain that navigation was practically suspended from the hour mentioned until the morning of the twenty ninth, when the storm abated, and during that time no master would have been justified in attempting to navigate his vessel, if he could avoid doing so. After the discharge of the cargo the Reynolds signaled for a tug to tow her from the dock, but none could be obtained because of the severity of the storm. If the lines holding the ship to the dock had been cast off, she would doubtless have drifted away; but, instead, the lines were kept fast, and as soon as one parted or chafed it was replaced, sometimes with a larger one. The vessel lay upon the outside of the dock, her bow to the east, the wind and waves striking her starboard quarter with such force that she was constantly being lifted and thrown against the dock, resulting in its damage, as found by the jury, to the amount of $500."

REMEDY SOUGHT	to recover $1,200 for damage to plaintiffs' wharf, caused by defendant negligently keeping its vessel tied to it.

ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
Defendant was negligent in keeping boat moored.

ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT
"The defendant in its answer alleged that a portion of the cargo was consigned to plaintiffs' dock and on November 27, 1905, its vessel was placed alongside at the place and in the manner designated by plaintiffs and the discharge of cargo continued until ten o'clock that night, that by the time the discharge of cargo was completed the wind had attained so great a velocity the master and crew were powerless to move the vessel. " It is the duty of the owner of the wharf to make suitable preparations for the safety of those who moor their boats along its side. When the public are invited to the wharf of defendant and charged for the security offered them, they have a right to expect and to depend upon the dock owner for such appliances for securing and holding their boats as are sufficient for that purpose.

COURT OPINION
"those in charge of the dock and the vessel at the time of the storm were not required to use the highest human intelligence, nor were they required to resort to every possible experiment which could be suggested for the preservation of their property. Nothing more was demanded of them than ordinary prudence and care, and the record in this case fully sustains the contention of the appellant that, in holding the vessel fast to the dock, those in charge of her exercised good judgment and prudent seamanship." "If during the storm the Reynolds had entered the harbor, and while there had become disabled and been thrown against the plaintiffs' dock, the plaintiffs could not have recovered. Again, if while attempting to hold fast to the dock the lines had parted, without any negligence, and the vessel carried against some other boat or dock in the harbor, there would be no liability upon her owner. But here those in charge of the vessel deliberately and by their direct efforts held her in such a position that the damage to the dock resulted, and, having thus preserved the ship at the expense of the dock, it seems to us that her owners are responsible to the dock owners to the extent of the injury inflicted." "Theologians hold that a starving man may, without moral guilt, take what is necessary to sustain life; but it could hardly be said that the obligation would not be upon such person to pay the value of the property so taken when he became able to do so. And so public necessity, in times of war or peace, may require the taking of private property for public purposes; but under our system of jurisprudence compensation must be made." "the defendant prudently and advisedly availed itself of the plaintiffs' property for the purpose of preserving its own more valuable property, and the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the injury done." Dissent by Judge Lewis: "In my judgment, if the boat was lawfully in position at the time the storm broke, and the master could not, in the exercise of due care, have left that position without subjecting his vessel to the hazards of the storm, then the damage to the dock, caused by the pounding of the boat, was the result of an inevitable accident. If the master was in the exercise of due care, he was not at fault."

DISPOSITION OF CASE
"a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $500. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed."

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Here the defendant argued that the Reynolds was moored to Vincent's dock at Vincent's request, and should therefore not be able to recover damages. The economic rationale here is that the Reynolds crew could better assess the trade-offs than could the dockowners, so the burden of damages is most efficiently placed on the boatowners.
The role of "fault" here is misleading. Neither is at fault, but someone must bear the cost of damages. The assignment affects decision-making, and the burden of adjustment should be assigned to the lowest-cost avoider.