Page 2388 F.2d 821, *; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8356, **
Kaufman, Anderson andFeinberg, Circuit Judges.
[*822] IRVING R. KAUFMAN,Circuit Judge:The difficult question presented bythis appeal is whether certain expensesincurred by claimant-appellants Cargill,Inc. (Cargill) and Cargo Carriers, Inc.(Cargo Carriers), as a result of an unusualconcatenation of events on the BuffaloRiver during the night of January 21,1959, are recoverable as a matter of law.The misadventures leading to thecatastrophe on the river that fatefulevening were set forth when this litigationwas previously before this court,
338 F.2d 708 (1964)
. For our purposes it issufficient to state that as a result of thenegligence of the Kinsman TransitCompany and the Continental GrainCompany the S.S. MacGilvray Shiras broke loose from her moorings andcareened stern first down the narrow, S-shaped river channel. She struck the S.S.Michael K. Tewksbury, which in turn broke loose from her moorings and drifteddownstream -- followed by the Shiras --until she crashed into the MichiganAvenue Bridge.
The bridge collapsed andits wreckage, together with the Tewksburyand the Shiras, formed a dam [**2] whichcaused extensive flooding and an ice jamreaching almost 3 miles upstream. As aresult of this disaster, transportation on theriver was disrupted until approximatelyMarch 13, 1959 -- a period of about 2months. Subsequent to our previous[*823] adjudication of the negligenceissues, Judge Burke appointed aCommissioner to determine the damagesof the various claimants.1 The finding of negligence by theCity of Buffalo in failing to raisethe bridge was upheld by this court.
338 F.2d at 717-718
.At the time of the accident, Cargill hadsome 336,000 bushels of wheat storedaboard the S.S. Donald B. Gillies berthedin the Buffalo harbor below the MichiganAvenue Bridge. (It is apparently not anuncommon practice for companies to"winter storage" wheat in this manner.)Cargill, it appears, was under contract todeliver 124,000 bushels of the Gillies'wheat during the period from Januarythrough March 1959. Because of theaccident the vessel could not be moved toCargill's grain elevators [**3] locatedabove the collapsed bridge so that it could be unloaded. In order to comply with itscontractual obligations, Cargill wasrequired to secure replacement wheat inthe Midwest.
The Commissioner allowedCargill $30,231.38 for its extratransportation costs and $8,232 for increased "storage costs."
2 Respondent Continental GrainCompany contends that Cargillcould have availed itself of grainelevators below the MichiganAvenue Bridge to unload theGillies. Because of our dispositionof the case, we need not deal withthis claim.3 The wheat abroad the Gillies had been financed and the "storage