Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

The Lucille

• 1873 • 86 U.S. 73 • Chase Court
The Lucille was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1873. The dispute arose when two vessels, the Lucille and the Lizzie B., collided off of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Both ships were damaged as a result of this collision and both parties sought damages from each other for their losses. The court found that both ships had been negligent in navigating around one another and thus held them equally responsible for any damage caused by the collision. This decision established...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Chase Court
Term: 1873
86 U.S. 73
22 L. Ed. 64
1873 U.S. LEXIS 1428

The Lucille

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Lucille was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1873. The dispute arose when two vessels, the Lucille and the Lizzie B., collided off of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Both ships were damaged as a result of this collision and both parties sought damages from each other for their losses. The court found that both ships had been negligent in navigating around one another and thus held them equally responsible for any damage caused by the collision. This decision established an important legal precedent which holds that if two vessels are involved in a maritime accident, they must share responsibility regardless of who is at fault or how much damage has been done to either vessel. In addition to establishing this principle, it also set forth guidelines on how such disputes should be handled going forward with regards to apportioning liability between multiple parties involved in similar accidents on navigable waters.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In The Lucille, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a ship's captain had authority to sell goods on board in order to pay for necessary repairs. In an 8-1 decision, the court held that he did not have such authority. Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that captains should be allowed to make such sales when it is necessary for the safety of their vessels or passengers. He noted that while there are laws governing how ships may be sold at auction, these laws do not provide any guidance as to what happens if a vessel needs immediate repair but lacks sufficient funds. Thus, allowing captains discretion in making such sales would ensure they can take whatever action is needed without fear of legal repercussions. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that since owners often lack knowledge about conditions at sea and rely heavily on their captains' judgment when it comes to matters concerning their vessels' safety and well-being, denying them this power could lead to disastrous consequences which could easily outweigh any potential harm caused by granting them some degree of autonomy over decisions regarding repairs and other necessities aboard ship

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Jan 19, 1874
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms