Document: 360 U.S. 411 79 S.Ct. 1210 3 L.Ed.2d 1334 SOUTHWESTERN SUGAR AND MOLASSES CO., Inc., Petitioner,v.RIVER TERMINALS CORPORATION. No. 155. Argued March 3, 1959. Decided June 22, Mr. Amos L. Ponder, Jr., New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Selim B. Lemle, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On September 24, 1944, barge Peter B, carrying a cargo molasses, sank in 30 feet water at dockside Texas City, Texas. Although was eventually raised, cargo, allegedly valued some $26,000, largely or totally lost. 2 Petitioner, Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., charterer and owner filed libel against respondent, River Terminals Corporation, carrier certificated under Part III Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., U.S.C.A. seeking recovery damages loss expenses occasioned raising repair barge, which had been towed by respondent from Reserve, Louisiana, to City there berthed. The District Court first tried issue liability, separating question subsequent determination, held that sunk lost as result respondent's negligence navigation management tow liable all damage cost repairing barge.1 153 F.Supp. 923. Respondent appealed interlocutory decree adjudging 28 1292(3), urging trial court erred holding (1) petitioner an interest B sufficient entitle it maintain thereto, (2) sinking were due negligence, (3) Harter Act2 did not establish freedom liability matter law, (4) certain provisions tariffs with Commission, purported release its assumed have applicalbe transportation here involved, invalid law constituted no defense thelib el.3 4 Appeals consider any three claims error, although if sustained they would wholly disposed case. Instead, directed attention contention exculpatory clause tariff, incorporated reference bill lading issued connection transportation, must be given effect. concluded because embodied tariff I.C.C. could instance declare invalid, but bound give effect unless until after appropriate investigation, reached contrary conclusion.4 Accordingly, reversed judgment 'in order afford * (petitioner) reasonable opportunity seek administrative action before Commission test validity challenged provision, otherwise full *.' 253 F.2d 922, 928. 5 Petitioner sought certiorari, contending refusal strike down decision this Bisso v. Inland Waterways 349 85, 75 629, 99 L.Ed. 911, where private contract towage purporting altogether exculpate tug own void public policy. We granted writ. 358 811, 38, 55. 6 At outset, we hold ordering what substance referral without passing on other error tendered below. As noted, those claims, accepted, required reversal entry case fully argued Appeals, plainly ripe decision. 7 Under these circumstances, think sound expeditious judicial administration should led leave issues undecided while course charted requiring institution litigation separate proceeding I.C.C.—a might well assume substantial dimensions—to sufficiency only one several defenses. If consequence findings made such determined excupat ory cannot effect, then decide very questions can now necessity collateral proceeding. Conversely, present ruling entirely obviate proceedings further delay final disposition already protracted litigation. conclude, therefore, passed upon expert assistance is concededly appropriate, invoking processes Commission. 8 Despite fact may ultimately render moot circumstances case, deem review law. Were remand adversely it, necessary once more question. importance development maritime, large responsibilities, constitutionally conferred; squarely presented record us; exigencies clearly call resolution stage. turn. 9 In (349 632) towboat not, suit alleging negligent towage, rely contractual provision exempt injury tow. There being Mississippi steam contract, caused operating collide bridge pier sink. reviewed prior cases field, conflict found resolved declaring kind involved 'public policy.' relied 'two main reasons' conclusion, rule 'to discourage negligence,' protection 'others who power drive hard bargains.' pointed out explicitly concurring opinion, Court's perforce consideration particularized economic factors relevant organization operation tugboat industry. 10 argues dispositive theory inherently illegal condition gains nothing part Commission.5 reasoning begs true presented, whether considerations policy called courts arrangements between are necessarily applicable with, subject pervasive regulatory authority of, body. struck over terms I.C.C., body primarily charged Congress regulation conditions carriers jurisdiction shall offer their services, control. below assumed, does challenge, applicability resulted duly containing clause. 11 moving too fast automatically extend govern case.6 For know, rate specified computed understanding apply relieve expense insuring itself tows servants, so computed. so, say demands benefit able repudiate correlative obligation procuring insurance knowledge respond despite agreement contrary. long towboat's rates times control, prospectively way reparation, possibility overreaching whereby exact high deny liabilities fairly impose aborted 633), however has 'power bargains,' modification when effectively controlled scheme.7 12 Further, noted restricted situation shipments transported barges furnished others than owner. Whatever forbidding exemption different moves loaded, never adequately inspect them waterline, which, defective, create emergency situations small degree readily lead monetary loss.8 peculiar hazards towing supplied shipper great, methods guarding uncertain, area expressly fair implication, declared particular result, federal creatively exercise responsibility maritime fashion deal circumstances.9 13 offends rather resolution. But mean therefore themselves enlightenment facts agency transaction peculiarly qui pped marshal initially evaluate. said Far East Conference United States, 342 570, 574, 575, 72 492, 494, 96 576, frequently recognized applied 14 '* principle, firmly established, within conventional experience judges discretion, agencies created regulating over. This even though appraised specialized competence serve premise legal consequences judicially defined. Uniformity consistency business entrusted secured, limited functions judiciary rationally exercised, preliminary resort ascertaining interpreting underlying better equipped specialization, insight gained through experience, flexible procedure.' 15 correctly ruled parties afforded obtain form proceeding, determination industry lend justification clause, be, militate toward invalidating regardless seeks invoke prospective retrospective regulation. 'Cases decided, nor appropriately understood, apart informed into factual controversy litigation.' Federal Maritime Board Isbrandtsen 356 481, 498, 78 851, 861, 926. principle force asked grounds arrangement face consensual. 16 remanded instructions pass assignments appeal Should dispose abeyance views bearing context litigation, consistent opinion. 17 It ordered. 18 Case instructions. 19 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK DOUGLAS believe announced changed reverse judgment. shipping crack starboard shell plate tanks discovered petitioner's local manager loaded molasses his supervision, employees various respects failing take proper precautions avoid become evident water. 46 192, 192: 'If vessel transporting merchandise property port States America diligence make seaworthy properly manned, equipped, supplied, neither vessel, her owners, agent, charterers, responsible resulting faults errors pertinent provided: 'When shippers, consignees Carriers Tariff, (or) cargoes will handled owner's risk only, otherwise. 'Presentation shipment shipper, consignee movement named herein constitute guarantee Tariff suitable voyage prospect. *' reaching conclusion 'the stated Supreme 'Until changed, bind both shippers law.' Lowden Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale Grain 306 516, 520, 59 612, 614, 83 953 *; Crancer Lowden, 315 631, 635, 62 763, 86 1077. 925. Compare Boston Maine R.R. Piper, 246 439, 445, 38 354, 355, 820, limitation rail carrier, saying that: 'While provisio lading, railroad company's fact. limitations carrier's binding (citation) are, one, illegal, consequently void.' decisive difference Piper specifically Act itself. See 20(11), 20(11). tug-tow relationship assimilated common far concerned. See, e.g., Steamer Syracuse, Wall. 167, 20 382. Thus liable, proof goods affirmatively showed acts God, enemy, authority, inherent vice nature commodity, Secretary Agriculture 350 162, 165, note 9, 76 244, 247, 100 173, cited, absence assail appeal. tugboats purposes circumstances. Cornell Steamboat Co. 321 634, 64 768, 88 978. Section 320(d) 920(d), provides, however, statute construed affect 'liabilities vessels owners settled common-law 'by secure Sun Oil Dalzell Towing 287 291, 294, 53 135, 136, 77 311; York Cent. Railroad Lockwood, 357, 21 627; Liverpool G. W. Steam Phenix Ins. 129 397, 469, 32 788, thus application here. 'common water' therein defined (see 902(d), 902(d)) file keep open inspection 'tariffs showing rates, fares, charges, classifications, rules, regulations d practices property' stating 'any rules anywise change, affect, determine aggregate value service rendered passenger, consignee.' 906(a), 906(a). Contract similar requirements. 906(e), 906(e). suspend newly investigates them, 907(g), (i), 907(g, i), time initiate complaint initiative, reasonableness tariffs. 907(b), (h), 907(b, h). propriety clauses regulated tariffs, availability use tower's payment higher alternative rate, results assumption tower relative practicality securing tower. do intimate view weight mentioned. instances governing irrespective contract. §§ 181—196, 1300—1315, 1300—1315 (water carriers); 319, 319 (rail motor carriers). Where statutes derogation valid. Adams Express Croninger, 226 491, 33 148, 57 314; supra. above, applies Be may, cited ample demonstration general congressional servants cases.

Category: 7