United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1947.
159
F.2d 169.
Prosser,
pp. 139-141
Facts: Conners Co.’s workers were
absent from their barge, the Anna C.
Carroll owned a tugboat whose workers caused the barge to come lose and
eventually sink. The
Issue: If no one is working on a
barge and the barge causes injuries to others, is the owner of the barge
liable?
Rule: No rule! Just some general guidelines to determine the
bargee’s duty.
Analysis: Learned Hand says that the
owner’s duty depends on three variables:
1. How likely is it
that the barge will break away from its moorings?
2. How big an
injury did it cause?
3. How expensive
would precautions be?
If
the expense of precautions is less the expectation value of the injury, then
the court will conclude that the owner had a duty that was breached.
Conclusion: The court finds that there
should have been a bargee aboard during working hours. Thus, Conners is partly responsible for the
harm caused.
Notes
and Questions
1. In the present
case, Hand acts as though the three factors are quantifiable, and he actually
does the algebra and comes up with an answer.
I actually think that in fact a judge is better equipped to make these
judgments than a jury.
2. This seems
like one big jumble of factors.
3. Based on Hand’s
analysis, the brief asserts that P is very low and B is rather high, such that
even a great L doesn’t justify the additional expenditure on safety.
4. Here, B is
very small and L is quite large. It also
seems that P is just big enough to find that the manufacturer could be found negligent.
5. Here, B is
moderate and P is very small where L is fairly high. This wouldn’t be an easy case, but I think
the fact that the harm is very unlikely and unforeseeable wins out.