Agrico Chemical Company v. M/V Ben W. Martin

Facts

P manufactures and sells 32% liquid nitrogen fertilizer (UAN). P contracted with D to provide the marine services and equipment necessary to transport P's products on a continuing basis. In October 1977, P advised D that it had more than 5000 tons of UAN to be moved. D assigned two of its barges to the task and engaged Logicon's (D) tow boat, the M/V GREENVILLE, to tow the barges on a mills-per-ton-mile basis, the usual way in which it engaged a tow. D concedes that its contract with P was not a charter but a contract of affreightment. Logicon (D) provided the tug and crew, arranged and paid for insurance, paid the expenses of the trip, and was compensated in the same manner in which a taxi would be paid. P then informed D that it wished to move an additional 3,000 tons of UAN. D had no other barge available. D contacted Logicon (D) seeking sufficient space on a Logicon (D) barge to move the additional cargo. D contracted with Logicon (D) for the extra shipment. D's tankermen were to load the two D barges. There is conflict in the testimony concerning whose tankermen were to load the Logicon (D) barge; the district court found, however, that this was to be D's responsibility. D furnished no crew and did not direct its movement. The Logicon (D) barge was not fully liquid-tight which allowed any liquid loaded to transfer between tanks. Thus during transport, if all the tanks were not full, the liquid could shift and cause the barge to become unstable and even capsize. The conventional exterior of the barge gave no visible suggestion of its internal structure with it not having liquid-tight internal containers. D told Logicon (D) about the cargo but Logicon (D) said nothing about the construction of the barge. When the barge arrived at P's plant, two of D’s tankermen experienced in handling UAN, began loading. Bland (Logicon’s (D) employee) testified that he suggested to the tankermen the order the tanks should be filled. After four hours of loading, the barge began to list. One of D's tankermen then sought out Bland, who informed the D tankerman of the nature of the bulkheads, which permitted the cargo to shift from one side to the other. The district judge found that 'with this knowledge (D's employees) continued with the loading, and with the advice and counsel, and at times the assistance, of Mr. Bland the matter was completed.' After the D tankermen left, and before the tow commenced, the barge began to roll. Bland was ordered to get the barge leveled off so the tow could begin. Bland put pumps on the barge and transferred some of the cargo from the first compartment to the other compartments. The barge was leveled and the tow commenced the next morning. All three barges made it to Greenville where a Coast Guard warrant officer was shocked to find that they made it that far with the third barge loaded with UAN because of its internal structure. The next morning during the trip the third barge began to roll and capsized. D sued only Logicon (D). Logicon (D) filed a third-party complaint against D seeking indemnity or contribution and also seeking the damages suffered by its barge. The district judge held that the arrangement between D and Logicon (D) constituted a charter and that D was functioning as a stevedore in loading the barge. As a stevedore D owed a duty of workmanlike performance to Logicon (D) and D's tankerman had committed a breach of this duty in continuing to load the barge after they knew of the openings in the centerline bulkhead. It held that D had a duty to discontinue the loading of the barge and thereby avoid an unseaworthy condition. The judge found that the master of the tug and its tankerman were familiar with this situation and that this was an unseaworthy vessel at the time they took it in tow. Nonetheless, the judge placed sole liability on D. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.