Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railway, Corp. v. Ingram Barge Co., No. 18-2143 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe owner of a lawful bridge may be found comparatively negligent for an allision even absent an affirmative legal duty to alter the bridge's configuration. DM&E filed suit against Ingram for damages stemming from a barge accident. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment for DM&E for the full amount sought, and held that the district court erred by concluding that DM&E could not be assigned any share of fault because it had no legal duty to remove or alter the lawfully permitted bridge. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to determine whether DM&E was in fact comparatively negligent.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Benton and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Admiralty. In this suit for damages as a a result of defendant's barges striking plainitff's rail bridge across the Mississippi River, the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff could not be assigned any share of fault in the accident because it had no legal duty to remove or alter its lawfully permitted bridge; the owner of a lawful bridge may be found comparatively negligent for an allision even absent an affirmative duty to alter the bridge's configuration; remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.