Kinsman Transit Co. v. City of Buffalo

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968 · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseRemoteness of Damagestortsnegligenceproximate causeremoteness

Facts

Because of the negligence of Kinsman Transit Company and Continental Grain Company, the Shiras broke loose, struck the Tewksbury, and both vessels drifted into the Michigan Avenue Bridge, whose collapse created a dam and ice jam that disrupted river transportation for about two months. Cargill had wheat stored aboard the Gillies below the bridge and could not move the vessel upriver to unload it, so it obtained replacement wheat elsewhere and incurred extra transportation and storage-related costs. Cargo Carriers was unloading corn from the Farr above the bridge when the vessel broke loose after being struck; although the cargo was undamaged, an ice jam and the unavailability of tugs trapped below the bridge required specially rented equipment to continue unloading. Neither claim sought recovery for direct physical damage to the vessels involved in these particular losses.

Issue

Are Cargill's and Cargo Carriers' additional expenses, incurred because the bridge collapse and resulting obstruction disrupted river traffic, recoverable in negligence? More specifically, were these losses too remote or indirect a consequence of the defendants' negligence to permit recovery?

Rule

A plaintiff may be denied recovery for losses caused in fact by negligence when the relationship between the negligence and the injury is too tenuous, remote, or indirect. Foreseeability of some general disruption does not by itself require liability once the claimed consequence becomes only fortuity rather than a sufficiently direct result of the negligent act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a tug operator negligently allows a barge to drift into a drawbridge, collapsing it and blocking the Cuyahoga River for five weeks. Lakefront Milling LLC had grain aboard a vessel below the blockage and, unable to move it to its upriver elevators, bought replacement grain in Indiana at higher shipping cost to satisfy supply contracts.

If Lakefront Milling sues the negligent tug operator for the extra shipping costs, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority treated these claims under ordinary negligence principles, not a special negligent-interference-with-contract rule. It accepted that disruption of transportation and some added costs were foreseeable, but denied recovery where the claimed loss resulted only from the obstruction of traffic and was too tenuous, remote, and indirect rather than a direct and immediate consequence of the negligence.