Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. The Barge W-701

654 F.2d 1164 (1981)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. The Barge W-701

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
654 F.2d 1164 (1981)

Facts

A consortium of oil companies (consortium) (plaintiff) owned a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. An underwater pipeline connected the consortium’s platform to the shore. Another oil company, Sun Oil Company (Sun), owned a nearby platform that did not connect to the shore. The consortium agreed to permit Sun to construct a connection to the consortium’s platform, permitting Sun to transport its oil through the consortium’s pipeline. Sun hired J. Ray McDermott (defendant) to construct the connection. McDermott hired Williams-McWilliams (Williams) to provide a barge and crew to help in the construction. Williams did not make any personal guarantees or warranties beyond those implied in any commercial agreement to engage a vessel. With respect to any issue with the construction, Sun agreed to indemnify the consortium, and McDermott agreed to indemnify Sun. Williams and McDermott did not enter into an indemnity agreement. During construction, Williams’s barge’s anchor got stuck on the consortium’s pipeline. The barge’s captain was an experienced shipmaster with a good reputation. Nonetheless, the captain negligently employed an aggressive maneuver to dislodge the anchor and ruptured the consortium’s pipeline. Various parties filed actions to sort out who was liable to whom. The district court consolidated the actions and found that Williams’s captain’s negligence was the sole cause of any damage. The district court then held that, in the first instance, liability for the damage lay with Williams. The court also held, however, that the Limitation of Liability Act limited Williams’s liability to the value of its barge, comprising only a fraction of the total cost of the damage. Accordingly, the district court held McDermott liable for the remainder under the indemnity agreements. McDermott appealed the district court’s use of the act to limit Williams’s liability.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gee, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership