King Coal Co. v. United States

Good Law
7 F.2d 153·1925 A.M.C. 1051·1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1201
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 24, 1925No. 18292California1,100 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

As before stated at the time of the oral argument, I am unable to agree with counsel for the government that this is a ease of inevitable accident. On the contrary, I believe the accident to have been a direct result of negligence on the part of those in charge of the Hagan, which was being operated by the United States Shipping Board. The real question is whether or not the Pennsylvanian also is responsible for the damage,which it is not denied would not have occurred if that vessel had been docked according to the harbor rules.

In some states, the violation of an ordinance or statute is prima facie evidence of negligence. In others, breach of a statute resulting in injury is held to be negligence per se. The harbor commissioners, in the interests of shipping, have enacted a rule which requires vessels not to project beyond the ends of the piers at which they are docked. On strictest principles of law, the plaintiff in an action for negligence obtains the benefit of such a rule or statute as this, if he be one of the elass for whose protection it was enacted, and the breach of such rule or statute was the efficient cause of the injury of which he complains. Evers v. Davis, 86 N.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.