!"#$%& ($)$%* +, -)..

/00 1/2#"3 (2
nu
Cii. 1947) - Leaineu Banu opinion

4)5$*6 NYC haiboi, waitime (1944). The Anna C. - a baige owneu by the Conneis
Naiine Company - was mooieu at a piei with seveial othei baiges. A tugboat
(chaiteieu by uiace Line anu owneu by Caiioll Towing) was sent to move one of the
othei baiges. In the piocess, the Anna C. bioke away fiom the piei anu was set auiift.
It colliueu with a tankei (whose piopellei toie open hei siue) anu staiteu leaking.
Because no one was aboaiu to notice the leak, the Anna C. eventually sunk, along with
hei caigo of floui. (The baigee hau been absent foi 21 houis, fiom Spm the piioi uay
until the acciuent at 2pm, anu the Couit thought his excuse foi being away was
fabiicateu.)

7./5%&8.)0 9#*$/.:6 0n appeal in the 2
nu
Ciicuit - no ieal uetail incluueu.

;**8%6 Who's liable foi the loss. (negligence analysis)

9/0&#"36 The baige ownei (Connois Naiine Company) shoulu have hau a baigee
aboaiu uuiing the uaylight woiking houis to keep an eye on things, unless theie was
some legitimate excuse foi his absence. Theiefoie, they'ie liable foi the loss.

<0)5=>0%$$%. ?)26 It's haiu to say, exactly. The opinion says the holuing is veiy
naiiow, anu is limiteu to the fact of this case, but theie's a lot of othei stuff about how
to analyze a negligence issue. Is this pait black-lettei law, oi not.

@%)*/"#"36 Banu fiist states that theie's "no geneial iule" foi when the baige ownei
will be liable foi injuiies to othei vessels if a baige bieaks away fiom the mooiing
without a baigeeattenuant on hanu. Be says :/8 5)"A$ B)=% ) 3%"%.)0 .80%, but
lays out thiee factois to analyze to figuie out if the baige ownei was negligent:
The piobability of the event (P)
The giavity of the iesulting injuiy (L)
The buiuen of taking auequate piecautions (B)
These factois will vaiy uepenuing on the time, place, anu exact situation.

As a guiueline, when the buiuen (B) is less than the piobability of the event (P) times
the giavity of the iesulting injuiy (L), then the ownei shoulu have taken the
piecaution (anu will be liable foi not taking it, when injuiy iesults).

The opinion uoesn't explicitly uiscuss all of this in teims of the foimula, but it seems
the #"C8.: was seveie (the baige sank anu lost its caigo) anu the D./E)E#0#$: was
ielatively high (shoit uays anu waitime activity), wheieas the E8.&%" (paying
someone to stay on boaiu anu keep watch) was ielatively low.

FG: &#& 2% .%)& $G#* 5)*%H The "Banu Foimula" foi a negligence analysis: Is B<PL.
(buiuen < piobability x likelihoou)

I8%*$#/"*6 Is the Banu Foimula iequiieu. Is it pait of the holuing. Bow shoulu
juuges apply it, exactly. What uoes it ieally auu. Bow is it newuiffeient.
!"#$%# '()# (*+ ,(--#')% (' )./% 0+/#1 /' +#2 0#"(34

!"#$%& ($)$%* +, -)../00 1/2#"3 (2
nu
Cii. 1947) - Leaineu Banu opinion

4)5$*6 NYC haiboi, waitime (1944). The Anna C. - a baige owneu by the Conneis
Naiine Company - was mooieu at a piei with seveial othei baiges. A tugboat
(chaiteieu by uiace Line anu owneu by Caiioll Towing) was sent to move one of the
othei baiges. In the piocess, the Anna C. bioke away fiom the piei anu was set auiift.
It colliueu with a tankei (whose piopellei toie open hei siue) anu staiteu leaking.
Because no one was aboaiu to notice the leak, the Anna C. eventually sunk, along with
hei caigo of floui. (The baigee hau been absent foi 21 houis, fiom Spm the piioi uay
until the acciuent at 2pm, anu the Couit thought his excuse foi being away was
fabiicateu.)

"#$% $&'$ $&() () ' *($ +#,-%. $&', /#)$ 0'1$) )%1$(#,) ,%%2 $# *%3 40$%, 5#6 76)$ ,%%2
%,#6-& 0'1$) $# .%/%/*%. 8&'$ &'99%,%2: #. /#.% )9%1(0(1'++5: 76)$ (,1+62% $&% 0'1$)
$&'$ '.% .%'++5 '$ ())6% (, $&% 1')%3

7./5%&8.)0 9#*$/.:6 0n appeal in the 2
nu
Ciicuit - no ieal uetail incluueu.

;#/%$(/%) $&() &'99%,): $&% 1')% 2#%),<$ -(=% 5#6 /61& (,0#./'$(#,3 >6$ .%/%/*%.: ($
() (/9#.$',$ $# 6,2%.)$',2 8&%.% (, $&% '99%++'$% 9.#1%)) ' -(=%, 1')% ()3 ?#6 /'5 ,%%2
$# +##@ 69 $&% &(%.'.1&5 #0 $&% 1#6.$ )5)$%/ $# 06++5 6,2%.)$',2 9.#1%26.'+ &()$#.5A

;**8%6 Who's liable foi the loss. (negligence analysis)

B&% ())6% () '+/#)$ '+8'5) (, C6%)$(#, 0#./3

9/0&#"36 The baige ownei (Connois Naiine Company) shoulu have hau a baigee
aboaiu uuiing the uaylight woiking houis to keep an eye on things, unless theie was
some legitimate excuse foi his absence. Theiefoie, they'ie liable foi the loss.

B&() () (, $&% )$62%,$<) #8, 8#.2) 8&(1& () (/9#.$',$3 D&%, *.(%0(,-: 5#6 2#,<$ 76)$
8',$ $# 1#95 %=%.5$&(,- #6$ #0 $&% 1')%3 E6$$(,- ($ (, 5#6. #8, 8#.2) /'@%) $&%
/'$%.('+ /#.% 5#6. #8,: ',2 5#6 8(++ +(@%+5 .%/%/*%. ',2 6,2%.)$',2 ($3

<0)5=>0%$$%. ?)26 It's haiu to say, exactly. The opinion says the holuing is veiy
naiiow, anu is limiteu to the fact of this case, but theie's a lot of othei stuff about how
to analyze a negligence issue. F) $&() 9'.$ *+'1@G+%$$%. +'8: #. ,#$H

F$ () '*)#+6$%+5 #@'5 ,#$ $# 06++5 6,2%.)$',2 8&'$ $&% *+'1@ +%$$%. +'8 () 0.#/ $&% 1')%3
I# 5#6. *%)$ $# 0(-6.% ($ #6$: &#8%=%.: 96$$(,- C6%)$(#,) (, 5#6. *.(%0 () ' -##2 8'5 $#
/'@% )6.% $&'$ 5#6 -%$ 5#6. C6%)$(#,) ',)8%.%2 8&%, 5#6 -# $# 1+'))3 J,2 (0 5#6 2#,<$
-%$ 5#6. C6%)$(#,) ',)8%.%2 (, 1+')): -# $'+@ $# $&% 9.#0%))#. (, #00(1% &#6.)3

@%)*/"#"36 Banu fiist states that theie's "no geneial iule" foi when the baige ownei
will be liable foi injuiies to othei vessels if a baige bieaks away fiom the mooiing
without a baigeeattenuant on hanu. Be says :/8 5)"A$ B)=% ) 3%"%.)0 .80%, but
lays out thiee factois to analyze to figuie out if the baige ownei was negligent:
The piobability of the event (P)
The giavity of the iesulting injuiy (L)
The buiuen of taking auequate piecautions (B)
These factois will vaiy uepenuing on the time, place, anu exact situation.

As a guiueline, when the buiuen (B) is less than the piobability of the event (P) times
the giavity of the iesulting injuiy (L), then the ownei shoulu have taken the
piecaution (anu will be liable foi not taking it, when injuiy iesults).

The opinion uoesn't explicitly uiscuss all of this in teims of the foimula, but it seems
the #"C8.: was seveie (the baige sank anu lost its caigo) anu the D./E)E#0#$: was
ielatively high (shoit uays anu waitime activity), wheieas the E8.&%" (paying
someone to stay on boaiu anu keep watch) was ielatively low.

FG: &#& 2% .%)& $G#* 5)*%H The "Banu Foimula" foi a negligence analysis: Is B<PL.
(buiuen < piobability x likelihoou)

I8%*$#/"*6 Is the Banu Foimula iequiieu. Is it pait of the holuing. Bow shoulu
juuges apply it, exactly. What uoes it ieally auu. Bow is it newuiffeient.

J-'(,: 5#6 8',$ $# /'@% )6.% $&'$ $&%)% C6%)$(#,) '.% ',)8%.%2 (, 1+'))3

5 1#3 -(+# '()#% (' 3+/))#' 0+/#1%6

7# ,$+#1*" '() )( -$8# ).# 0+/#1 )(( "('94 F$ () ' .%0%.%,1% 2#16/%,$ ',2
)&#6+2 *% ' )6//'.5 #0 8&'$ 5#6 .%'23 F$ )&#6+2 ,#$ *% ' 2())%.$'$(#,3 F0 5#6 0(,2
5#6.)%+0 /'@(,- *.(%0) $&'$ '.% /61& +#,-%. $&', #,% 9'-%: $&%, 5#6 ,%%2 $#
$'@% ' )$%9 *'1@ ',2 ')@ 5#6.)%+0 (0 5#6 '.% K)6//'.(L(,-M $&% /'$%.('+ #.
)(/9+5 K.%G$59(,-M ($3 "#8 $&() K#,%G9'-%M .6+% 2#%),<$ 8#.@ 0#. %=%.5 1+')): *6$
5#6 1', 6)% ($ ') ' -%,%.'+ .6+%3
F$ () '+)# (/9#.$',$ $# @%%9 (, /(,2 $&'$ 5#6. *.(%0 /'5 1&',-% 0#. ' -(=%, 1+'))
2%9%,2(,- #, &#8 5#6. 9.#0%))#. )$.61$6.%) $&% 1+')) 2()16))(#,3 N#. (,)$',1%: (,
O%%<) 1.(/(,'+ +'8 1+')): $&% 9.#0%))#. 8#6+2 '+8'5) )9%1(0(1'++5 ')@ )$62%,$)
'*#6$ *#$& $&% E.#)%16$(#,<) '.-6/%,$) ',2 $&%, $&% I%0%,)%<) '.-6/%,$)3 ;#
)&% '+$%.%2 &%. *.(%0) $# 1'++ $&() (,0#./'$(#, #6$ )# )&% 8') .%'25 $# 9'.$(1(9'$%
(, 1+'))3