302
,FEDERAI" REPORTER.
q,uen, ce of which,while the latter was engaged in his duty of cleaning the apparatus. his hand was caught and so injured as to require amputation. HeW,. that defendant was liable for the injury. ' 8. DAM:AGEs-'-Loss OF fuND-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS NOT EXCESSIVE.
Where an accident occurred through the negligence of defendant, resulting in the loss of libelant's hand, held, that a judgment for $4,000 was not exces· sive. , ,I·;
THE CANIMA.
(Circuit Court, S.
J).
New York. March 6,1885.) ,
"The steam.·sbip C., coming up North river to make a landing on the $outh sido:o£f,pier 47,caught sight of theca'1al-boat .R. lying qver 500 feet away northside of pier with;her. prqjecting 19 or 19 feet int.o the river beyond the end of the pIer. ThIS pIer dId not extend lDtO th'e stream by over 50 feet. the distance of the other piers, and the place where the R. lay was 250 feeH'othe iiol'th·from intended berthoftIieO. The C. meant
,AT PIlIlR-CANk.BoAT.
303
starboard bow, but kept on with the flood tide u.ntilher bow was opposite to or beyond the north line of pier 48, when her bo'w was drawn in by the line and her stern carried out in the river by the tide, and thus she swung in towards pier 48 until her starboard bow struck the starboard bow of the R., . which immediately sank. There was no one in charge of the R. at the time of the collision. Held, that the C. alone was in fault. the R. owing no duty to her or·to any vessel intending to land at the south side of pier 47, and the captain of the R. being under no obligation to anticipate such an event as took place.
td back hi, and as she came up to pier 47, she took a line from that pier to her
In Admiralty. Libel for damages. 17 Fed. Rep, 271.
On appeal from district court
WALLACE, J. The canal-boat loaded with a cargo of coal, was lying moored on the north side of pier 48, North river, preparatory to discharging her cargo, when she was struck by the steam-ship Canima, and sank almost immediately. The Canima had come up the river intending to make a landing on the south side of pier 47, by backing into her berth. As she got opposite pier 46, her captain and first officer saw thE- Redfield with her bow projecting 10 or 15 feet into the river beyond the end of her pier. As the Canima came up to pier 47, she took a line from that pier to her starboard bow, but kept on with the flood-tide UD· til her bow was opposite or beyond the north line of pier 48, wheli her bow wR13drawn. in by the line, and her stem carried out into the river by tne tide, and thus she swung in towards pier 48, until her starboard bow struok the starboard bow ofthe Redfield. As pier 48 did not extend into the river by over 50 feet, the. distance of the other piers, and the place where the Redfield lay was 250 feet to the north from the\ intended berth of the Canima, and as the Canima saw the Redfield :when she was over 500 feet away, there was no necessity and no excuse for -the Canima's collision with the Redfield. The lell,med district judge before whom the case was tried in the court below was of the opinion thatthe {Janima might and should have avoided the Redfield altogether, although the latter projected beyond the pier; and this conclusion is fully warranted by the proofs. But he was also of opinion that the Redfield was in fault because her bow projected, and upon this ground apPQrti()ned the loss. He also placed some emphasis, in his opinion, upon ttle cir<lumstance that there was no one in charge ofthe Redfield at the tilDe {)f the collision. 17 Fed. Rep. 271. If the location of the Redfield had been such as to obstruct the Cani·rna's access to her pier, or in any way to complicate her proper move·ments, the Redfield would have been culpable. But she mved no ·-duty to the Canima or to any vessel intending to land at the south side of pier 47. She was not in the way of the Canima if the latter had not a place where she had no right to go. If the Redfield had · been wholly inside the pier, and obscured from the view of those in ,.charge oftheCanima, the conduct of the latter would have been more excusable than it was. And they can with no more justice complain of her location than they could if she had been wholly inside the pier. It might as well be urged that 'asailing vesseLholding her propel' cp.urse,
304
FEDERAL REPORTER.
but run down by a steamer, should be deemed in fault for want of a 238, 243. If there was fault on the lookout. The Fannie, part of the Redfield, it did not contribute to the collision. That was due solely to the inexcusable negligence of the Canima. The Redfield was not even in the way of passing vessels, because the pier was so much shorter than the adjacent piers. The captain of the Redfield was under no obligation to anticipate such an event as took place. He was temporarilyabsent, but if he had been present he could not have rendered any material asistance in the emergency. T4e libelant is entitled to a decree of $1,000, the sum at which his damages are adjusted by stipulation, as of the date of June 23, 1884, with interest from that date, with costs of the dil:ltrict court and of this appeal.
HUNT
v. THE MISCHIEF and another. t September 23, 1887.)
(District Ooort, E.' D. New York.
COLLISION-TuGS AND Tows-NARROW CHANNEL-OVERTAKING VESSIiL-PREMATURE START.
The evidence indicating that the tug B., after she had turned to the side of the narrow channel of Newtown creek, and had slowed to allow the tug M. and her tow to pass her, started her engine again while the M. was passing, and thereby ran against the latter's tow, forcing libelant's boat against a dock, held. that the tug B. was solely liable for the resulting damage.
Hyland &- Zabriskie, for libelant. Edwin G. Davia, for the Martha Bogart. Alexander &- A8h. for Ithe Mischief. BENEDICT, J. The decision of this case depends upon the determination of a single question of fact, namely, whether the tug Martha Bogart, after she had turned to the side of the narrow channel of Newtown creek, and had slowed to allow the tug Mischief and her tow to pass up to port of her, started her engine again while the Mischief was passing, and thereby ran against the canal-boat in tow of the Mischief, and so caused such a change of position in the respective boats as to force the libelant's canal-boat against the dock above, called "Cooper's Dock," whereby she sustained the damage sued for. Upon this question my opinion is that the weight of the evidence is clearly with the contention of the Mischief, and shows that the damage which the libelant's boat received by striking Cooper's dock was not caused by any negligence on the part of the Mischief, but by the wrongful action of the Martha Bogart in starting her engines. and pushing against the libelant's boat in the way she did, while the Mischief was in the act of passing. The libelant must have a decree against the Martha Bogart for his .da.mages, and the libel, as against the Mischief, must be dismissed, with I costs. lReportell by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.