When result resulted from resulting

From page 453 and 454 of the Reviewer on Commercial Law, 2014 Edition by Jose R. Sundiang, Sr. and Timoteo B. Aquino:

We have a few quibbles here. First, too many "results" in one sentence. The SC ruling was parsimonious with only one.

The appellate court ruled, gathered from the testimonies and sworn marine protests of the respective vessel masters of Limar I and MT Iron Eagle, that there was no way by which the barge’s or the tugboat’s crew could have prevented the sinking of Limar I. The vessel was suddenly tossed by waves of extraordinary height of six (6) to eight (8) feet and buffeted by strong winds of 1.5 knots resulting in the entry of water into the barge’s hatches. The official Certificate of Inspection of the barge issued by the Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line Certificate would attest to the seaworthiness of Limar I and should strengthen the factual findings of the appellate court.

Second, my professor in Legal Writing, Atty. Gallardo A. Escobar, Jr., would have added that there is a dangling modifier here. It would seem that the fortuitous event resulted from the barge being tossed by waves.

Anyone in the class would have revised it this way:

The court ruled that the sinking of the barge towed by the tugboat was a result of a fortuitous event. The barge was suddenly tossed by waves of extraordinary height and buffeted by strong winds causing the entry of water through the barge's hatches.

Notice that instead of "into" the revision used "through" which is more precise. The hatch of a barge serves as an entrance into its hold. Technically, the water entered into the hold through the hatch.