814 I',,:
nDERAJ,i,
t: ':;'1 THE
,".i '
JOHNS.
: THE FF.1RN HOLME.
Rn:cHI:(l: v. (Distriot, dO'Urt, . :
BROOKS
et al.
'D. RrrcHm
6l 01.
iJ.
Massadhlusstts. April '21,
COLLISION-"BETWEEN SnAMAND SAIL-CHANGING COURSE UNNECESSARILY.
Where 8 collision occurs between a steamer and schooner on accoun t of the .'scho-pner's violation of t!).e sailin,lot rules. in changiJ;\g her course from star,'board to port. and then back,again to starboard. without any excuse arising .out of the exigencies of navigation, and no negl'igence is shown on the steamer's part, the schooner isJiable for the reljulting damages. .
" . In Admiralty. Oros8:'libels for a collisjon between the' steamer ]j'ern Holme and the schooner St. Johns. B'l,ttkn, Stillman & for the Fel.'ne Holme. F. Dqdge, for Johns.
NELSON, J. This collision occurred on ilie ev;cning of17th March, 1887, about seven miles to the eastward of Sandy Hook light-ship. The Fern was approaching New York bay on a ,Holmej,alarge ,voyage from England, making a W. is. coqrse at a of niue knots. Thfi St. Johns, a s,chooner of about 400 tons,)wll8J:)Oundon a voyage to the eastward, with a cargo ofcoal, being on the port.tack with the wiod,N., W., her course due east, or nearly opposite to tbatof the steamer, ,bowsprit and her:speed about six knots. , In the collision ofthet\lchQoner struck steamer on the starboard bow·.· The case turns :rnainlYco.nthe testimony,glveu by the master ofthe Fern Holme,and by the. sec.ondmate ofthe St. JOhllS, who were the officers in charge of their ;respective vessels attha time'of the.accident. The testilnony of the master of the Fern Holme was,in substance, that, observing from his station on ,the bridge.. the red light,QIf the approaching vessel benring haIfa point on his starboard bow, he ordered his. wheel.to, be ported, to pallEl the achooner on her,pod:sidej hut before the order could ,be executed, the schooner ahuUn :her red light and ahowed her green light, being then al;>out half a mile distant and the light still bearing over his starboard bow. On seeing .the green light, he,ordered the wheel harddio starboard, to pass on :the starboard side, butl!ts ,the steamer fell off to port under the starcboard. h.elm, the schooner shut in her: green light and showed her red ligbt,.l.lgain. He bis engine, but it was too late, and the sohooner ·bore down, QD; and. the collision . TaktHat :the colli:;lion ing this to be a true account of the accident, it is was owing solely to the violation of the sailing rules by the schooner, in changing her course, first from starboard to port, and then hack again to or misconduct starboard. Nothing appears here to show any on the part of the steamer. It is argued that even on this showing she But should have reversed her engines when the green light was
THE ST. JOHNS.
815
it was then necessary that she should fall off rapidly to avoid running the schooner down, ana this the reversing of' the engines would have prevented. To this may be added also that if she was wrong in not reversing, the fault arose through an error of judgment in a Budden and unexpected emergency caused wholly by the misconduct of the schooner. For this, reason also the error would be excusable. Thesecond mate of the St. Johns testified that the steamer's mast-head light was first disco\'ered a little on his port or weather bow, and presentlyber red light was Men in thes;:tme direction; that when the two vessels were within a few lengths of each other, the steamer's red light 'still showing over his' pOrt bow, he ordered his helm to port; that as the schooner fell off under the'port helm, the steamer made a sudden change to port, showing her green light, an,d heading directly across the SCb90ner's bow from port to starboard. He denies that he made any other change of course, but admits that the order U:! port was given before,the steamer turned to port, and at a moment when his own red light could , alone have been visible to the steamer. ',A1terfullconsideration ofail the evidenCe in the case, I have cOple to the conclUSion that the: account which the master of the Fern Hohne gi\1el!lbf this accident is substantially correct. I therefore find the ,'pi:\ncipal question of fact in dispute-whioh was whether the St. Johns changed' her course from sta.rboard to port-against the schooner.' I believe statements of the the steamer, that they saw the schooner,'s, over the starboard second mate admits the change,/rom port to starboard, but defends it by claiming that the steamer was then In dangerous proximity. But so long as the port lights the two towards,ea<:h other,. there was no dangerous proximity, and for fearing or anticipating collision. The act looks an attempt to dictate to' the steamer on which side she, should pass.. As he committed this it is perhaps easier to believe he afso Committed inore serious one of permitting his vessel' to come up so near to the, wind: as to open her green light to the approaching steamer. this was the result of ya",ing and steering,-as there is some ground forcollcludinPi,-or of design, it is unnecessary to inquire. no pretense tha.t ,the schooner was theil'in extremis. ,The fact There itselfi,s sufficiently proved, and is decisive; and as no explanation or ex· out of the exigencies of navigation or overwhelming necessity isshown,'lind as it was the cause of the ac;cident, it is enough tQ conrlcm!1 the sohooner for the consequences of the' collision. I n the (J.'l.se (If .the FerneHolme against the St. Johns, an interl?cutory decree is to be.en tared fQr the libelants; the of the St. Johns against the Fern Holru6 ., i{dismissed, with cos,ts. So ordered.
of
816
FEDERAL REPORTER.
, TBEBENJAMIN
F. HUNT, JR.
(District Court, D. Ha88a"hu8ettB. April 17. 1888.) COLLISION-DAMAGES-TOWAGE.
Where a vessel, in a collision caused by the fault of another, lost her jibboom, bowsprit, head-gear, and rigging, and all her head-sails except the forll,stay sail, had her forward bulwarks stove, and her head carried away, luld, that the expense' of a tug to tow her through dangerous no.vigation to her home port was a proper item of damage recoverable against the vessel causing. the injury, and the action of the master in taking her to the home port, instead of going into an intermediate port for temporary repairs, would be respected, unless he, acted dishonestly or ignorantly.
At Law. Exception ,to allowance Ofiteni of damages. O. '1. RlJ,8sell, for libelant. -
Frederick Dodge,for NELSON, ,T. At the J9rmer hearing oOhis case, the bark Benjamin F. Hunt, .'fr., was found' in fault for a collision the three-masted schooner Anna' A. Booth,' on' the 30th of August, 1886, The caSe wall afterwards referred to an assessor, who has made his report, and ,has included as I part of the damages the amount of a bill of $200 paid by the libelant ,to the Boston Tow-Boat Company for the services of the tug Storm King in towing the schooner from the place of collision to New York. The of, the bark excepts to the allowance of this item, upon the ground that the expense at the tug was unnecessartly incurred.'l'heschoonei',at the time was bound on a voyage from' $t. John to New York, which latter port was ,also her home port. In collision she lost her jib-boom and. bowsprit, and all her heact-gearftrld rigging. Of her head-sails only her fore stay-sail remained. Her forward bulwarks were also and her head carried away. Under the schooner was justified in proceeding to New York, which wasbotl,1 her home port. and her port of discharge, for her permanent repairs. In her disabled condition she was clearly not bound to attempt the difficult and dangerous navigation of shoals and Viney:ml sound without aSsh;;tance. She had, indeed, the. alternative of going into some intermediate port for. temporary repairs., and then proceeding on her way. But this would in all ;pi'obability have increased, rather than diminished,the damages recoverableagainst the bark. The expense of such repairl and the demur,rage, would, have exceeded the cost of the service of the tug. :Besides, the master was uncertain as to the condition of the hull, and in good faith came to the conclusion that the prUdent course for bim to pursue was to take the tug. His decision ought not to be overruled except upon proof that he acted dishonestly or ignorantly. Exception is ovelTuled.