Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
864 F.2d 1550 (1989)
- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
During a severe rainstorm that caused a historical amount of flooding, a towboat owned by Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. (Warrior) (plaintiff) hit a bridge crossing the Black Warrior River because of the high floodwaters. The tow lost its cargo, so it radioed other Warrior tugs for assistance. Those tugs came to the rescue, but in doing so, they also lost their barges. The rescues created a domino effect that destroyed several more boats. By the end of the flooding, Warrior had lost a great deal of property. Warrior sued the United States (defendant), arguing that the United States was liable for the damage to all of the tows because it was negligent in operating the lock-and-dam system on the river. The court ruled in favor of Warrior, and the United States appealed. The United States argued that the lock-and-dam system was not a flood-control project and as such the United States’ operation of the dam could not be the proximate cause of Warrior’s damages. The dams were simply intended to pass downstream all inflow in excess of that necessary to provide the advertised navigational depth in each dam’s upper pool. Consequently, the United States argued that the flooding was an act of God that was the proximate cause of the tow hitting the bridge and the United States could not be held liable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
