Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

27840 (1963)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 27840 Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 18, 1963
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 315 F.2d 631 NASSAU COUNTY BRIDGE AUTHORITY, as custodian and user of Atlantic Beach Bridge, Libellant-Appellant, v. TUG DOROTHY McALLISTER and her owner McAllister Brothers, Inc., Respondent-Appellee. No. 247, Docket 27840. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued March 6, 1963. Decided April 18, 1963. Eugene Underwood, of Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City (Stanley R. Wright and E. Lisk Wyckoff, Jr., of Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New Y
More

315 F.2d 631

NASSAU COUNTY BRIDGE AUTHORITY, as custodian and user of
Atlantic Beach Bridge, Libellant-Appellant,
v.
TUG DOROTHY McALLISTER and her owner McAllister Brothers,
Inc., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 247, Docket 27840.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 6, 1963.
Decided April 18, 1963.

Eugene Underwood, of Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City (Stanley R. Wright and E. Lisk Wyckoff, Jr., of Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City, on the brief), for libellantt-appellant.

Vincent A. Catoggio, of Purdy, Lamb & Catoggio, New York City, for respondent-appellee.

Before CLARK and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Abruzzo in concluding that the damage was caused solely by failure of the bridge tender to give a timely danger signal. The applicable regulations, 33 C.F.R. 203.180(a), (b) and (d)(2)(i), can only be construed as requiring a prompt reply to the signal of an approaching vessel.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer