918
FEDERAL REPORTER.
DE LELJ,El1. THE
(Dilltriqt Court, 8. D. New York. April 80, 1888.)
1.
SHIPPING-LIABILITY FOR TORT-STEAMERS RAISING SWELLS.
In plying about rivers and harbors, steamers raising heavy swells mllst give heed to the presence of other boats following their legitimate business. and slow or stop to avoid damaging the'latter by such swells. '
2.
SAME-NoTICE OF DEFECT.
Masters of old and weak boats are bound to take corresponding precautions to give notice to others of the need of special caution in dealing with them. "
8.
SAME-lhMAGES.
It, appeared that ,libelant's canal-boat was injured through being thrown agah:ist a dock by the swells from the yacht A.· but it also appeared that the canal-boat was old and weak, and was hence damaged more than a boat in ordinary condition would have been. Held, that libelant should recover ha.'f his damages only. · ,
In Admiralty.
Libel for damages.
Hyland for libelant., , , Vande1poel, Green, Owmingand Goodwin, for claimant. BROWN, J. The libel was filed for damages caused to the libelant's' canal-boat Wm. E. Cleary, while s4e was discharging brick at the City Yonkers, through the suction l!oud, swell Gaused by,t)le steam-yacht' Atalanta in passing down the North river. The evidence shows that the yacht was going at the rate of a litUe less 14 knots; that the tide was flood, and within about an hour of high waterj that her waves are about the same as those of the largest steamers that go up the North river; that she pasaed about half a mile from' ,the shore; that she was in the habit of slowing when she received any signal {rotqthe dock indicating that a ves,sel w.asthere unloadingj that. :upon the m,orning in question she did not slow, no signals being heard; that the libelant's lines were loose,the rebound of the waves llfter the finst suction thrust the canal-boat with such force against the dock as to snap two of her deck and her keelson. " 'l'hereis sljght testimony thata signal whistle was sounded from the doc)!, but as jtwae not heRrel, I am not satisfied while unloading, was in plain' on this point. But the libelant's sight of the Atalanta as she came down. The libelant's boat was some 14 years old, and was no doubtin a fElebIe condition. It was nEl¥ertheless useful to him, and he had the right to make use of her, subject to the ordinary risks of navigation. The heavy swells from steamers that make waves from one to three feet high are not, however, such ordinary incidents of navigation as boats are bound to take the risk of, whether large or small, new or old. On the contrary, it has been the settled law since the use of steamers in navigation, that, in plying about rivers and harbors where their swell and suction are likely to produce injury to other craft following their legitimate business, stAamers must give heed to their presence, and by slowing, or stopping the engine temporarily, as the case lReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
THE POHONA.
919
may be) avoid doing them unnecessary damage. As the libelant's boat was plainly in sight, it was the duty of the Atalanta to have slowed in .paBBing. I do not think, however, that a canal-boat in ordinary coudition would have' sustained as much damage as was proved in this case, from a steamer at such a distance from the dock. I have constantly held that the masters of old and weak boats are bound to take corresponding precautiohs to give such notice to others as is practicable of the need of any special caution. There Was special need in the present case of a signal by whistle to passing steamers to make sure that her presence and the special need of caution were not unheeded. I allow the Cleary, therefore, for one-half her damages, and interest, the sum of $40, with costs.
THE JOSE CARUSLE
E.
MORE.
et ale
11. THE POMONA..
KERR 'D. THE JOSE
(D,iBtriot Oourt. E. D. N6lD York. April 6. 1888.) CoLLISION-BETWEEN STEAM:A:ND SAIL-MISTAKE OF WUEELSMAN. . . AS8 barkentine and 8 steamer were approaching, and before they were GO near 8S to require or justify a change of course on the part of the sailing ves-
sel. the, master. of the latter ordered the'wheel starboarded. which would have caJ'l'iedher further from the course of the steamer. By a mistake of the . wheelsman the helm was ported, and the barkentine thus thrown in the course of the steamer. Held. that tl,le sailing vessel was alone responsible for the collision. . ' : . .
In Admiralty. The collision in this case happened on the night of December 6, 1885, in the Atlantic ocean, in the neighborhood of Barnegat. 'l'he barkentine, bound from Matanzas to New York, was on a N. E. by N. course, and the steam-ship, from New York to Jamaica, was moving slowly S. W. by W. 1 W. The steam-ship alleged that she first saw both lights of the barkentine, and thereafter the green lightdiE;appeared, and the collision followed shortly after; the steamer striking the sailing vessel on her port bow. CroBB-libels were filed for the damage. Owen & Gray, for the barkentine. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for the steam-ship. BENEDICT, J. I think it plain that the cause of the collision in question in these two cases was a change of course by the sailing vessel when near the approaching steamer. The evidence proves that, as the I
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.