## Facts

- A collision sequence occurred in the East River in New York City involving the steamship *Jumna*, the tug *Gypsum King*, barge No. 19 in tow, and the schooner *Gypsum Emperor*.
- While the tug was towing barge No. 19, the barge came into contact with the *Jumna*.
- After that initial impact, the barge and the schooner were carried into (and struck) a railroad pier, causing additional damage.
- Vessel and cargo interests filed libels and cross-libels, each attributing the casualty to the others’ handling and failure to take proper precautions in a confined, busy waterway.
- The district court tried the matter on sharply conflicting testimony about the vessels’ relative positions, movements, speed, and lookout, and concluded that fault was not proven against any vessel.
- The district court dismissed all libels and cross-libels on the theory that the events were an “inevitable accident,” leaving each party to bear its own loss.
- All sides appealed from the dismissals.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly treated the collision sequence as an “inevitable accident” that excused all vessels from liability.
2. Whether the evidence required a finding that one or more vessels failed to use ordinary care and seamanlike conduct, making exoneration of all parties improper.
3. Whether the appellate court should set aside the district court’s across-the-board dismissals and direct entry of decrees imposing liability consistent with the proven fault.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit rejected the district court’s broad “inevitable accident” disposition and did not allow all vessels to escape liability on that basis.
- The court reversed the no-fault decrees at least to the extent they rested on inevitable accident and required that liability be imposed where the record showed a failure of due care.
- The cause was sent back for further proceedings and entry of appropriate decrees consistent with the appellate determination of fault (including related damage consequences under admiralty collision practice of the period).

## Legal Principles

- “Inevitable accident” in admiralty is a narrow, last-resort defense; it is not established by uncertainty, conflicting testimony, or a mere inability to pinpoint every movement of every vessel.
- A vessel (or party) invoking inevitable accident must affirmatively show that the casualty could not have been avoided by ordinary care, proper seamanship, and compliance with applicable rules of conduct on the water.
- In collision litigation, courts test witness accounts against probabilities and objective conditions (such as relative positions, courses, and the setting) and may reject a trial court’s blanket no-fault conclusion when the record points to avoidable error by one or more vessels.
- Exonerating all vessels is improper where the evidence supports a finding that some reasonable precaution was omitted that likely would have prevented contact or reduced the chance of impact.
- Once fault is found, admiralty does not leave each side to its own loss on an inevitable-accident theory; liability follows the fault findings, and (under the then-prevailing rule) mutual fault could lead to divided damages rather than complete exoneration.

## Conclusion

In *The Jumna*, the district court dismissed all competing collision claims as an inevitable accident after a multi-vessel East River casualty involving the *Jumna*, the tug *Gypsum King* with barge No. 19, and the schooner *Gypsum Emperor* (followed by contact with a railroad pier). On appeal, the Second Circuit refused to accept a blanket no-fault outcome, treated “inevitable accident” as a narrowly confined defense requiring affirmative proof of unavoidable cause, and reversed the across-the-board dismissals so that liability would be imposed in line with the proven failure of due care.


Cannot be determined from available information (if the case exists and matches, it would be The Jumna, 149 F. 171 (2d Cir. 1906))