## Facts

- A.S. Wikstrom, Inc. owned Lighter No. 64, an old wooden carfloat converted into a deck scow, carrying cargo on a voyage from Wilmington, Delaware to New York City.
- The Tug Julia C. Moran, operated by Moran Transportation Co., took the lighter in tow on July 19, 1956; weather was good and waters were calm.
- Before departure, the tug’s master inspected the lighter for about an hour, focusing on pumps, deck condition, and cargo arrangement; no claim was made that this inspection revealed or should have revealed latent structural defects.
- During the tow down the Delaware River, the lighter “tacked” side-to-side in an arc; testimony established this was not unusual for such a tow.
- Around 4:45 p.m., the tug’s master observed the lighter’s stern freeboard had dropped substantially from earlier in the day.
- The tug slowed, altered course toward shore, shortened the tow, and released the towline to attempt beaching, but the lighter continued to settle and sank before it could be beached.
- The tow owner alleged the tug failed to keep an adequate lookout and should have detected the lighter’s settling earlier.
- Evidence showed a surveyor had previously found the lighter unfit for towage while under repair, but that assessment was not shown to have been communicated to the tug operator.

## Issues

1. Whether the tug and its crew breached their duty of reasonable care by failing to detect the lighter’s loss of freeboard earlier and by failing to take earlier action to prevent sinking.
2. Whether the tow owner proved that any negligence by the tug caused or contributed to the loss, rather than the lighter’s unseaworthiness being the cause.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the libel and entered judgment for the tug and its operator.
- The court found the tow owner failed to prove the tug was negligent in lookout or handling of the tow.
- The court found the sinking resulted from the lighter’s unseaworthy condition, not from any fault of the tug.
- The court declined to infer tug negligence merely from the fact that the tow sank.

## Legal Principles

- A tug is not an insurer of the tow and does not warrant the tow’s seaworthiness; absent special agreement, its duty is to exercise reasonable care and maritime skill under the circumstances.
- A tug may generally rely on the tow as tendered and is not required to discover latent structural defects not reasonably apparent from ordinary observation.
- In towage casualties, the tow owner bears the burden to prove specific negligence by the tug and a causal link to the loss; sinking alone does not create a presumption of tug fault.

## Conclusion

The court held that the tug exercised reasonable care and responded promptly once observable danger appeared, and that the tow owner failed to carry its burden to prove negligent lookout or causation; the loss was attributed to the lighter’s unseaworthiness, so the libel was dismissed.


A.S. Wikstrom, Inc. v. Tug Julia C. Moran, 190 F. Supp. 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)