Valentine Waterways Corp. v. The Tug Choptank, 380 F.2d 381 (4th Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Valentine Waterways Corp. v. The Tug Choptank, 380 F.2d 381 (4th Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shebby Dredging Co. v. Smith Bros., Inc. (mdd, 1979-05-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shebby Dredging Co. v. Smith Bros., Inc. (2×)
D. Maryland · 1979 · confidence medium
Co., 21 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1927); Valentine Waterways Corporation v. Tug CHOPTANK, 260 F.Supp. 210 (E.D.Va.1966), aff’d 380 F.2d 381, 382 (4th Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Star Towing Company v. Barge Org-6504
E.D. La. · 1969 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, Valentine Waterways Corp. v. Tug Choptank, E.D.Va.1966, 260 F.Supp. 210 , aff’d, 4 Cir. 1967, 380 F. 2d 381 , where the court held that although the tug was not negligent, and the peril was caused by the tow’s unseaworthiness, the efforts made were not “salvage” because the tug merely towed the barge back to port, a service comprehended by the contract of towage. 4 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Valentine Waterways Corporation
v.
The Tug Choptank, Her Engines, Apparel, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, and Allied Towing Corporation, as Owner and Operator, in Personam
11229.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 21, 1967.
380 F.2d 381
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

380 F.2d 381

VALENTINE WATERWAYS CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
The TUG CHOPTANK, her engines, apparel, tackle, etc., in rem, and Allied Towing Corporation, as Owner and Operator, in personam, Appellees.

No. 11229.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 1, 1967.

Decided June 21, 1967.

R. M. Hughes, III, Norfolk, Va., (Seawell, McCoy, Winston & Dalton, Norfolk, Va., on brief) for appellant.

Morton H. Clark, Norfolk Va., (Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, Va., on brief) for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

A river barge lost its bow rake while under tow on an ocean voyage. The District Court found no negligence on the part of the tug. It applied a presumption of unseaworthiness of the barge from its breakup in fair weather while under a normal tow at reasonable speeds.

2

On appeal, the barge concedes that the presumption was properly applied in denying its claim against the tug, but complains that resort to the presumption in allowing the tug's claim against the barge for services was a reversal of the burden of proof.

3

We think not. The District Judge did not place the burden of proof on the barge in deciding the tug's claim. The affirmative evidence of the tug's care eliminated every explanation for the breakup of the barge other than its own unfitness for an ocean voyage. In light of the moderate seas and winds encountered, that proof was quite sufficient to carry the tug's burden of persuasion, notwithstanding the limited Coast Guard certification of seaworthiness for one voyage only.

4

Affirmed.