Case Name: CONSOLIDATED GRAIN AND BARGE CO., Appellant, v. HUFFMAN TOWING CO., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1986-09-26
Citations: 801 F.2d 1072
Docket Number: No. 85-2523
Parties: CONSOLIDATED GRAIN AND BARGE CO., Appellant, v. HUFFMAN TOWING CO., Appellee.
Judges: Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 801
Pages: 1072–1075

Head Matter:
CONSOLIDATED GRAIN AND BARGE CO., Appellant, v. HUFFMAN TOWING CO., Appellee.
No. 85-2523.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 1986.
Decided Sept. 26, 1986.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 13, 1986.
Elmer Price, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Frank S. Thackston, Jr., Greenville, Miss., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge.
Consolidated Grain and Barge Company (Consolidated) brought this suit in admiralty against Huffman Towing Company (Huffman) to recover for damages sustained by several of its Mississippi River barges. Consolidated's barges were damaged when they dived below the surface of the water on an upriver tow. The district court found in favor of Huffman, and Consolidated appeals. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on January 4, 1984, on a portion of the lower Mississippi River known as Mile 296. On that date, the M/V JANET MARIE was proceeding upriver at full speed with a tow of twenty loaded unmanned barges, including four Consolidated barges. When the tow of the JANET MARIE reached a point adjacent to Catfish Light Point (Mile 296.2), three of the lead barges dived below the surface of the water resulting in substantial damage to Consolidated barges and to the cargo on one of them.
At the time of the accident, Mile 296, a straight stretch of river, was marked by one red buoy which had been placed in twenty feet of water by the United States Coast Guard on December 20, 1983. The buoy indicated the limit of the navigable channel on the left descending bank of the river. The captain of the JANET MARIE, Tommy Leroy Drury, piloted the tow boat so that the starboard side of the tow was approximately 300 feet out from the red buoy line.
Following the accident, Consolidated brought suit in federal district court against Huffman arguing that the damages sustained by its barges were caused by the negligence of Huffman's pilot, Captain Drury. Consolidated asserted, relying on an opinion expressed by Captain Drury both in his accident report and in his deposition, that the barges entered into a dive because they ran from deep water into shallow water. Consolidated contended that Captain Drury should have navigated the tow further out from the red buoy line. The district court, however, found for Huffman. It concluded that Consolidated did not sustain its burden of establishing that Captain Drury failed to exercise due care under the then existing circumstances. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Consolidated's principal contention on appeal is that the circumstances of the accident raised an inference of negligence on the part of Huffman's pilot, which Huffman was required to, but failed to, rebut. Consolidated bases its argument on this court's opinion in Agri-Trans Corp. v. Peavey Co., 742 F.2d 1137 (8th Cir.1984).
In Agri-Trans, we concluded that whether an inference of negligence arises where damage occurs to a barge under contract of the tow depends upon the weighing of all the facts by the district court. In that case, we said that a tug's receipt of a barge in good condition followed by delivery in damaged condition coupled with evidence that the damage to the barge appeared to have resulted from a collision with a large, solid, rounded, stationary object would support an inference that the barge collided with a bridge pier, mooring cell or similar structure. We held that with such evidence, the district court was not precluded as a matter of law from inferring negligence on the part of the defendant. See Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195, 52 S.Ct. 347, 76 L.Ed. 699 (1932). We cautioned, however:
We emphasize the limited nature of our holding. We hold only that the law does not preclude the finder of fact from inferring negligence on the facts of this case. Whether the weight of the credible evidence actually justifies the inferences remains to be determined by the finder of fact.
Aqri-Trans Corp. v. Peavey Co., supra, 742 F.2d at 1139.
In the present case, the district court observed that although Consolidated's case is based on the assumption that the diving of the barges occurred because they ran from deep water into shallow water, Consolidated produced no evidence regarding the depth of the water at the time and place in which the accident occurred. Fur-
thermore, the district court concluded that there was insufficient evidence for it to reasonably find that Captain Drury either knew or should have known of the existence of shallow water, and that based on such knowledge he failed to take reasonable precautions. The district court discounted Captain Drury's post-accident statements that the barges entered into a dive because they ran from deep water into shallow water. It characterized these statements as opinions or guesses by Captain Drury that were clearly not based on facts known to him prior to the accident. The district court concluded that these opinions were "too slender a reed upon which to predicate a finding of negligence." 623 F.Supp. at 349. It noted that there are several possible circumstances that could have caused the barges to dive, and that both Consolidated's expert witness and Captain Drury testified that barges could dive for reasons unrelated to negligence on the part of the tower.
Therefore, based upon its analysis of the evidence the district court rejected any inference of negligence. On review, we hold that the district court's conclusion is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. SCNO Barge Lines, Inc. v. Sun Transportation Co., 775 F.2d 221, 224-25 (8th Cir.1985).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable John K. Regan, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. The district court opinion is reported at 623 F.Supp. 347 (E.D.Mo.1985).
. For example, the evidence disclosed that loaded barges may dive while traveling (1) from deep into shallow water, (2) from shallow into deep water, (3) from a current into slack or still water, (4) from slack into a current, (5) from a current into an eddy, or (6) an eddy into a current.