The New York Central R. R. brought a suit in admiralty to recover damages to its carfloat No. 37 resulting from a collision occasioned solely by the negligence of the Long Island R. R.'s tug Talisman and those in charge of her. At the time of the collision the carfloat No. 37 was moored in a carfloat bridge of the Long Island's terminal at Long Island City where it had been received in connection with the transportation in interstate commerce of freight cars and freight. The New York Central had received a notice that the Long Island would not be responsible for any damage to floating equipment while lying at the above terminal, whether arising through the negligence of the latter company or through other causes. No reply was made to the notice. The court held that the terminal and carfloat bridge were not "terminal facilities" the use of which by another carrier could be required "on such terms and for such compensation as the carriers affected may agree upon, or, in the event of a failure to agree, as the Commission may fix as just and reasonable for the use so required," within the intention of sec. 3, par. 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act; rather, that they were mere interchange facilities and came within the requirement of sec. 3, par. 3 that all carriers shall, according to their respective powers, "afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines . . . . " Thus the Long Island R. R. was responsible for its negligence since, as it was not in a position to dictate terms, the New York Central R. R. was under no obligation to repudiate those proposed or to reply in any manner to the notice. The No. 37, (U.S. 1933) 53 Sup. Ct. 328.
CARRIERS -TERMINAL AND CARFLOAT BRIDGE - WHETHER "TERMINAL" FACILITIES OR "INTERCHANGE" FACILITIES,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol32/iss1/12