## Facts

- The barge *Anna C*, owned by Conners Marine Co. and chartered by Pennsylvania Railroad Co., was moored in a tier of barges alongside a pier in the North River in New York Harbor.
- The *Anna C* carried a cargo of flour owned by the United States.
- A tug operation involving the tug *Carroll* (owned by Carroll Towing Co. and chartered by Grace Line) required shifting barges and adjusting mooring lines; Grace Line’s harbormaster supervised the maneuver.
- During the shifting operation, lines connecting adjacent tiers were handled in a manner that contributed to the Pier 52 tier (including the *Anna C*) breaking away from its moorings.
- The *Anna C* drifted downriver and struck a tanker, which holed the barge at about the waterline.
- The *Anna C*’s bargee (attendant) was not aboard; he had been absent since the previous afternoon and remained away during the morning of the incident.
- Unattended, the *Anna C* took on water and sank, causing damage to the barge and loss of the United States’ flour cargo.
- In consolidated admiralty proceedings, the district court imposed liability on the tug interests and addressed limitation of liability and apportionment among Carroll Towing, Grace Line, Pennsylvania Railroad, and Conners; Carroll Towing and Pennsylvania Railroad appealed aspects of fault allocation and contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the tug interests (Carroll Towing and Grace Line) were negligent in shifting barges and managing mooring lines, leading to the breakaway and subsequent collision.
2. Whether the barge owner (Conners), through the bargee’s absence, was contributorily negligent for leaving the *Anna C* unattended during daylight working hours in the harbor.
3. How to determine the required standard of care for precautions such as keeping a bargee aboard, including whether duty should be assessed through a probability-loss-burden calculus.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that the tug interests were negligent in the mooring/shift operation that led to the breakaway.
- The court held that Conners was contributorily negligent because, under the circumstances, it was reasonable to require a bargee aboard during daylight working hours.
- The court applied a cost-based negligence test—comparing the burden of precautions to the probability and gravity of harm—to evaluate whether the bargee’s absence breached the standard of care.
- The court modified the allocation of damages to account for Conners’ contributory negligence as to the barge’s own damage, while preserving the United States’ cargo recovery without reduction for the barge owner’s fault.
- The court recognized Grace Line’s responsibility through its harbormaster’s authority to assess the sufficiency of the mooring lines, and maintained Carroll Towing’s liability subject to limitation principles applied below.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence may be assessed by balancing: (1) the probability of harm (*P*), (2) the gravity of the resulting loss (*L*), and (3) the burden of adequate precautions (*B*); liability is indicated when *B* < *P × L*.
- There is no categorical rule requiring a bargee to be aboard at all times; the degree of care required depends on circumstances such as harbor conditions, traffic, and foreseeable risks.
- In admiralty, a vessel owner’s contributory fault can reduce the owner’s recovery for the vessel’s own damage through divided (apportioned) damages rather than operate as a complete bar.
- A cargo owner’s claim against negligent third parties is not reduced by the vessel owner’s separate negligence when the cargo owner is not responsible for that negligence.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed negligence by the tug interests and held the barge owner contributorily negligent for failing to keep a bargee aboard during daylight working hours, applying the B < PL calculus to define reasonable care and reducing the barge owner’s recovery accordingly while leaving the cargo owner’s recovery unimpaired.


United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947)