Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A barge owner was found contributorily negligent for damages after its barge sank. The court introduced the “Hand Formula” (B < PL), an economic test for negligence, finding the burden of keeping a bargee aboard was less than the probability and gravity of the potential harm.
Legal Significance: This case established the influential “Hand Formula,” an algebraic framework (B < PL) for determining breach of duty in negligence law. It defines reasonable care by balancing the burden of taking precautions against the probability of injury and the gravity of the potential loss.
United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Conners Company, owned the barge “Anna C,” which was moored at a busy pier in New York Harbor. The defendant, Carroll Towing Co., was operating a tug that negligently caused the lines mooring a tier of barges, including the “Anna C,” to break. The tier floated downstream, and the “Anna C” struck a tanker, puncturing its hull. The plaintiff’s employee, a bargee, was not on board and had been absent for 21 hours. His absence was unexcused and occurred during daylight working hours. Because no one was present to discover the leak and summon aid from nearby tugs equipped with pumps, the barge took on water, dumped its cargo, and sank. The plaintiff sought to recover the full value of the lost barge and cargo. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because the bargee’s absence prevented the mitigation of damages after the initial collision.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Was the barge owner contributorily negligent for the loss of its barge when its employee was absent during working hours, and his presence could have prevented the vessel from sinking after it was damaged by another’s negligence?
Yes. The barge owner was contributorily negligent. The court held that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugia
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Was the barge owner contributorily negligent for the loss of its barge when its employee was absent during working hours, and his presence could have prevented the vessel from sinking after it was damaged by another’s negligence?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational decision in tort law, providing a flexible, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitati
Legal Rule
A party is negligent if the burden of taking adequate precautions (B) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea
Legal Analysis
Writing for the court, Judge Learned Hand articulated a new standard for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cul
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Establishes the Hand Formula for negligence: B < PL. - Liability