Stevens v. the White City

Background

A small motorboat called the Drifter was built by Consolidated Shipbuilding and arranged to be towed from the builder’s plant at Morris Heights to Port Newark on October 13, 1925. An employee of the builder and the buyer coordinated the tow. The tug White City, owned by Herbert Simpson and another man named Rhodes, performed the tow. The Drifter was attached with ropes and a cradle was used to stow it on a steamer. The cradle detached at Hell Gate but was reattached with no damage then. The tug tied up overnight at Bayonne, the builder’s attendant left, and the next morning the Drifter was taken to Port Newark and found with a hole and a dish-shaped dent amidships above the waterline. The tug’s owners could not explain how the damage happened.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether hiring a tug to tow a vessel makes the tug a bailee and whether damage at delivery creates a presumption of the tug’s negligence. The Court explained that a contract to provide towage does not give the tug exclusive control or the kind of custody that makes it a bailee. It held that simply showing the tow was sound when received and damaged when delivered does not automatically assume the tug was negligent. The owner seeking money for the damage must prove the tug failed to use reasonable care. Because the evidence left the time, place, and cause of the damage uncertain, the owner did not meet that burden and the Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Real world impact

This ruling means boat owners cannot shift the burden to a tug by proof of damage alone; they must present evidence tying the injury to the tug’s conduct. The decision applies to ordinary towage agreements and confirms the established rule that towage does not create bailee-style custody or automatic liability.