Yes, they are responsible for everything, including the flood damage. The court said that their carelessness created a 'zone of danger' for everyone and everything along the river. It doesn't matter that they couldn't have predicted the ships would form a dam and cause a flood. The flood was a direct result of the danger they created (a runaway ship). The court also said that you can't just blame the last person who messed up (the city); all the parties who were careless have to share the blame and the cost.

No, they shouldn't have to pay for the flood damage. This judge agreed that the parties were responsible for the ships crashing and the bridge breaking, because that was predictable. But he thought the flood was a total freak accident, like a crazy cartoon chain reaction. He argued that the connection between the bad rope job and the later flood was just too weak and random. He felt it was unfair to make them pay for something so bizarre and unforeseeable.

Yes, the people who didn't tie up the ship right and the ones who didn't raise the bridge in time are responsible for the damage, even though they probably couldn't have predicted exactly how bad it would be. The court said that if the damage comes from the same danger they were supposed to be careful about, it doesn't matter if it ended up being worse than they could have guessed. They still have to pay for it because their carelessness led to the damage.

Judge Moore agreed with most of what the majority decided, but he didn't think the people should be held responsible for the flooding damage to buildings along the river. He thought that was too unpredictable and far beyond what they could have foreseen. He said there has to be a line somewhere, and this was on the side of the line where they shouldn't be liable.

Yes, a negligent party's liability extends to such damages. The court held that where damages result from the same physical forces whose existence required the exercise of greater care, and are of the same general sort that was expectable, unforeseeability of the exact developments and extent of the loss will not limit liability. The court rejected the trial court's application of the 'last clear chance' doctrine between the tortfeasors, holding that in admiralty, damages should be divided among all negligent parties. It distinguished Palsgraf v. Long Island RR on the grounds that all claimants here, as riparian owners, were within the foreseeable zone of danger of a negligently moored vessel. The court concluded that the flooding was a direct consequence of the negligence that set the ships adrift and the subsequent failure to raise the bridge, and thus all negligent parties (Kinsman, Continental, and the City of Buffalo) were liable for the full scope of the damages, which were to be apportioned among them.

No, liability should not extend to the unforeseeable flood damages. While concurring with the findings of liability for the direct collision damages to the ships and bridge, this opinion dissents from holding the parties liable for the subsequent upstream flooding. The dissent argues that the creation of a dam by the ships and bridge wreckage was an extraordinary and unforeseeable concatenation of events, a 'fortuitous circumstance' for which the link of causation was 'too tenuous.' The dissent rejects the majority's reasoning as a form of judicial insurance that imposes liability based on ability to pay rather than on the traditional negligence concept of foreseeability. It argues that while the collisions were foreseeable consequences of the negligence, the resulting dam and flood were not.

Yes. The court found that the negligent mooring of the Shiras and the failure to raise the Michigan Avenue Bridge were direct causes of the subsequent damages. The court held that the City of Buffalo, Continental Grain Company, and The Kinsman Transit Company were liable for the damages, with Kinsman entitled to limit its liability. The court rejected the 'last clear chance' doctrine to absolve Kinsman and Continental of negligence and held that unforeseeability of the exact developments and extent of the loss does not limit liability for direct damages resulting from the negligent act. The majority reasoned that where the damages resulted from the same physical forces whose existence required the exercise of greater care than was displayed and were of the same general sort that was expectable, unforeseeability of the exact developments and of the extent of the loss will not limit liability.

Judge Moore concurred with the majority's opinion regarding limitation of Kinsman's liability, the extent of liability of the City, Continental, and Kinsman for damages to the City and the various ships, and the division of damages. However, he dissented from the portion of the opinion approving the award of damages suffered as a result of flooding of properties upstream. Judge Moore was not satisfied that the flooding was foreseeable, arguing that the fortuitous circumstance of the vessels arranging themselves to create a dam was 'too tenuous.' He believed the majority was pushing the doctrine of foreseeability to 'ridiculous lengths' and that the line of demarcation, while uncertain, must have areas on each side, with the flood claimants 'much too far on the non-liability side of the line.'

Petitions of the Kinsman Transit Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot