33 U.S.C. § 494

Obstruction of navigation; alterations and removals; lights and signals; draws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

No bridge erected or maintained under the provisions of sections 491 to 494 and 495 to 498 of this title, shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of the waters over which it is constructed, and if any bridge erected in accordance with the provisions of said sections, shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating at any time unreasonably obstruct such navigation, either on account of insufficient height, width of span, or otherwise, or if there be difficulty in passing the draw opening or the drawspan of such bridge by rafts, steamboats, or other water craft, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating after giving the parties interested reasonable opportunity to be heard, to notify the persons owning or controlling such bridge to so alter the same as to render navigation through or under it reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed, stating in such notice the changes required to be made, and prescribing in each case a reasonable time in which to make such changes, and if at the end of the time so specified the changes so required have not been made, the persons owning or controlling such bridge shall be deemed guilty of a violation of said sections; and all such alterations shall be made and all such obstructions shall be removed at the expense of the persons owning or operating said bridge. The persons owning or operating any such bridge shall maintain, at their own expense, such lights and other signals thereon as the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall prescribe. If the bridge shall be constructed with a draw, then the draw shall be opened promptly by the persons owning or operating such bridge upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats and other water craft.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases, 1930–2015 · leading case: Am. Petroleum & Transp., Inc. v. City of New York, 737 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Petroleum & Transp., Inc. v. City of New York, 737 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “As a consequence of the delay, American alleges that it suffered $28,828 in economic losses.”

In Re Silver Bridge Disaster Litig., 381 F. Supp. 931 (S.D.W. Va 1974). · cites it 5× “] Section 4 of the Bridge Act, 33 U.S.C. § 494 , further empowers the Secretary to require alterations of a bridge under certain circumstances: 27 That no bridge erected or maintained under the provisions of this Act shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of…”

Intracoastal Transp., Inc., & Anderson Marine Constr., Inc. v. Decatur Cnty., Georgia, Dep't of Transp., 482 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1973). · cites it 2× “In relevant part, it provides that draw bridges shall be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats or other watercraft, 33 U.S.C. § 494 . The Act does not impose enormous fiscal burdens on the states as part of new pervasive scheme of federal regulation.”

Auto. Club of New York, Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 706 F. Supp. 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). · cites it 2× “) by auto, rail, and bus via Port Authority facilities over the interstate waters between New York and New Jersey has increased since 1967 as follows: [[Image here]] All four Port Authority bridges were constructed in accordance with the provisions of the General Bridge Act of…”

Nassau Cnty. Bridge Auth. v. Tug Dorothy McAllister, 207 F. Supp. 167 (E.D.N.Y 1962). · cites it 3× “” The claimant-respondent relies upon Title 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 494 , 499 and 512 which provide: “§ 494.”

Pilot River Transp., Inc., Upper River Servs., Inc., & Wausau Ins. Companies v. Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., 912 F.2d 967 (8th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “Relying on 33 U.S.C. §§ 494 1 and 499, 2 the court held that C & NW had violated its statutory duty of care to keep the bridge open after reasonable signals were given by the approaching vessel.”

Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Revilo Corp., 637 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “33 U.S.C. §§ 494 , 499 (1976). FEC also violated various duties created by the federal regulations promulgated pursuant to 33 U.”

Molinari v. New York Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 838 F. Supp. 718 (E.D.N.Y 1993). · cites it 2× “” 33 U.S.C.A. § 494 (1986) (current version at 33" U.”

Abdon Callais Boat Rentals, Inc. v. LA. P&L CO., 555 So. 2d 568 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “LP & L contends that under 33 U.S.C.A. § 494 , the bridge tender is guilty of statutory fault when failing to open a drawbridge in response to the first proper signal given by an approaching vessel.”

United States v. Sabine Towing & Transp. Co., 289 F. Supp. 250 (E.D. La. 1968). · cites it 2× “” It appears that the applicable statutes and regulations are as follows: 33 U.S.C.A. § 494 : “No bridge erected or maintained under the provisions of sections 491-498 of this title, shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of the waters over which it is…”

Channel Star Excursions, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., a Corp., 77 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1996). “In addition, there is nothing in the statutory text that would indicate that Congress would place Channel Star, as a pleasure cruise operator, in an “especial class.”

Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 99 F.2d 902 (8th Cir. 1938). “Section 4, 33 U.S.C.A. § 494 , provided that navigation should not be obstructed by the bridge, and that tolls for the use of any toll bridge should be reasonable and just.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.