Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co.
Cases that cite this one
56 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Complaint of Twenty Grand Offshore, Inc., Etc. Twenty Grand Offshore, Inc. v. West India Carriers, Inc., Claimant-Appellee (5th Cir. 1974)
- In the Matter of the Complaint of Unterweser Reederei, Gmbh. Zapata Off-Shore Company v. M/s Bremen and Unterweser Reederei Gmbh (5th Cir. 1970)
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1972)
- Seley Barges, Inc. v. Tug El Leon Grande (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1974)
- Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)
- In the Matter of the Complaint of Unterweser Reederei, Gmbh. Zapata Off-Shore Company v. M/s Bremen and Unterweser Reederei, Gmbh (5th Cir. 1971)
- Fluor Western, Inc. v. G & H Offshore Towing Co., Inc. (5th Cir. 1971)
- American Steamship Company, Libelant-Appellant (Cross-Appellee) v. The Great Lakes Towing Company, (Cross-Appellant) (7th Cir. 1964)
- New York Marine and General Insurance Company v. Ingram Barge Company, LLC (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 2022)
- PPG Industries, Inc. v. Ashland Oil Co.-Thomas Petroleum Transit Division (3d Cir. 1978)
- Tenneco Oil Co. v. Tug Tony (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)
- Fireman's Fund American Insurance Company v. Boston Harbor Marina, Inc. (1st Cir. 1969)
- Crescent Towing & Salvage Company v. Dixilyn Drilling Corporation (5th Cir. 1963)
- Conklin & Garrett, Ltd. v. M/v Finnrose, Etc. (5th Cir. 1987)
- Texasgulf, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1985)
- B.H. Morton and Thomas Kent v. Zidell Explorations, Inc. (9th Cir. 1982)
- S. S. Kresge Co. v. Port of Longview (Wash. Ct. App. 1977)
- The Dow Chemical Company v. M/v Charles F. Detmar, Jr., Its Tackle, Etc., in Rem (7th Cir. 1976)
- No. 73--3984 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Stevens Institute of Technology v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
- United States v. Tug Ramrod (5th Cir. 1975)
- Dickerson v. Continental Oil Company (3d Cir. 1972)
- Crawford v. West India Carriers, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
DIXILYN DRILLING CORP.
v.
CRESCENT TOWING & SALVAGE CO.
Supreme Court of United States.
E. D. Vickery argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs was Wilbur H. Hecht.
Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr. argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George B. Matthews.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Crescent Towing Company contracted with petitioner Dixilyn Drilling Corporation to tow Dixilyn's barge Julie Ann down the Mississippi River. While being towed, the barge collided with a bridge, and the bridge owners filed a libel in the United States District Court claiming damages from the tower and the barge owner. These two jointly paid the claim but continued to litigate, as between themselves, the question of which was liable. The district judge after a full trial found that the collision and the resulting damage were due solely to the negligence of the tower. He also rejected the tower's argument that regardless of which was negligent the barge owner should pay the damages because it had contracted to assume liability for all damages arising out of the towage including "any damage claims urged by third parties." The judge held that the barge owner had not agreed to assume liability for damages caused by the tower's own negligence. On review the Court of Appeals *698 held that it need not decide the "extremely difficult" factual question of who was negligent because, in the court's view, the barge owner had agreed in the towage contract to assume liability for all losses arising out of the towage, including those caused by the tower's negligence. Holding such a contract to be valid, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment.
In treating as valid a contract which exempts the tower from liability for its own negligence, the Court of Appeals' holding is squarely in conflict with our holding in Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U. S. 85 (1955), and Boston Metals Co. v. The Winding Gulf, 349 U. S. 122 (1955). The Court of Appeals thought that the present case was distinguishable because the peculiar hazards of towage and other factors brought it within the ambit of Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. River Terminals Corp., 360 U. S. 411 (1959). But Southwestern Sugar is not applicable here, for in that case the Court merely preferred to give the Interstate Commerce Commission an opportunity to rule on an exculpatory clause which was part of a tariff filed with the Commission. We adhere to the rule laid down in Bisso and Winding Gulf and hold that the Court of Appeals was in error in failing to follow it. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to that court to consider other questions.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
While I would prefer to see Bisso reconsidered, believing, with deference, that it was wrongly decided, I nevertheless join the opinion of the Court. Certainly in the law governing commercial transactions of this kind is an overriding consideration which would not be promoted by opening the Bisso rule to indeterminate exceptions in instances where, unlike Southwestern Sugar, no functions of a regulatory agency are involved.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.