The Roman Prince

United States District Court · 1919 · Torts

TortsNegligenceMaritime collisionRes ipsa loquiturmaritime tortnegligencecollisionburden shifting

Facts

While the Roman Prince, a large steamship, was backing stern first out of a 275-foot slip without tug assistance, the barge Crane lay moored nearby loaded with barley. Several eyewitnesses, including disinterested witnesses and Mrs. Keenan, testified that the Prince's stern-side struck the Crane on its starboard side aft of amidships and then continued along it, after which the Crane began sinking within minutes and was submerged within about 30 minutes. A diver later found stern planks on the Crane forced out before another vessel, the Wabash, entered the slip. The Prince's witnesses denied any contact and claimed open water existed between the vessels throughout the maneuver.

Issue

When a moored barge sinks shortly after a large vessel backs out of a slip, may negligence be imposed on the moving vessel based on the evidence of contact and resulting damage? More specifically, is mere proximity enough, or must the libelant prove contact or some operative effect from the moving vessel before negligence may be inferred?

Rule

Mere propinquity of two vessels, or an unexplained sinking occurring near the time another vessel passes, does not by itself prove causation or negligence. Res ipsa loquitur may be invoked only if the evidence shows some contact between the vessels or some effect upon the injured vessel resulting from the navigation of the vessel charged. If contact is found as a fact and the injured vessel thereafter sinks from injuries consistent with that contact, negligence may be inferred from undertaking and executing the maneuver without sufficient precautions, and the burden shifts to the claimant to show that the injury was caused by something else or that the contact could not have produced the injuries found.

🔒

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 Baltimore Harbor, the cargo barge Maple Street was tied alongside a pier when the freighter North Cape backed out of a narrow berth. No witness saw the vessels touch, but twenty minutes later the barge began taking on water and sank. The barge owner cannot identify any dent, scrape, wake effect, or other physical impact attributable to the freighter.

Under the majority rule, which is the strongest argument for the freighter owner?

Explanation. The majority held that mere propinquity of two vessels, or an unexplained sinking near the time another vessel passes, is insufficient. Res ipsa loquitur may be used only if there is proof of contact or some operative effect from the charged vessel's navigation. Without such proof, negligence cannot be inferred. (Derived from The Roman Prince (n.d.).)