services of a physician or nurse during the voyage. ,On8uoh vessels, from time immemorial, it is the master of the ship who is expected to act as physician and nurse, according to his ability, in case of sickness ,or accident; and his care and attention are all tha,Uhe crew have aright to,<lernf\od, under the contract of hiring. Thia is an action upon contract, and,1\'hile there was lack of attention to the condition of the libel.. ant whil!l sick on board, the ship, the low condition reached by the libelant cannot he held to have arisen from a breach of the mariner's contract. ,It was attributable to :the misfortune which :befell the ship and its crew ,when the master died, and the mate and crew became enfeebled by the fever that broke out on board. The libel coiltains another cause of action, namely, that certain personitleffects which Wl;'re left on board the vessel when the libelant was taken on shore sick. in New York, have not been returned. The evidence shows that the libelant.1eft on board the ship,when he was taken to the clothes and some other personal effeats. Some of his clothes wereb-u,rried, because infected, some have been retul.'ned, but others have not been returned or accounted for. The answers to the interrogatories proponpded to the libela.nt by the claimant show the value of the articles notaceounted for to be $187.84. For this sum he may have a decree, unless the claimant elect to have a reference to ascertain the value of the artic1,eEl not accounted for, in which case a referenOElwill be directed to ascertain the value.
THE BALTIc. 1 ,THB
W.
H.BEA.MAN.
AI,»RICH
v.
THE BA.LTIC AND THE
W. H. ' ,
BEAMAN.
,(Dl.Btrf.ct
Oourt, S. D. New York. January 24, 1890.)
OoLLnnON-Fl!IRRy-BoAT AND Tow-MUTUAL FAULT.
The tug W. H. Beaman, with libelant's canal-boat in tow. came around the Battery from the North to the East river, about 300 feet from the line of the piers. At thesa,me !time the ferry-boat Baltic W8.'l crossing the East river from the foot of Hamilton, avenue, Brooklyn, to, her slip near pier ,2, East river. The vessels were visible to each other from the time the Baltic left her slip. When about 1,000 feet distant, tbeBaltic,leaving the Beaman ahead oronher starboard bow, blew one whistle. Getting no answer, she blew again, and ported tp roundInto her slip. Tben,lI6!ling the Beaman starboard, theSaltic was stopped and backed. The Beaman's Witnesses testified that they firllt saw the Baltic when she was about olf the end of Governor's island, and expected that she would go astern of them. The, Baltic ({olUded with libelant's canal-boat, and sank her. He14, tl1.at the Beaman was in fault (1) for inattentiOll to the signals of the Baltio; (2)ID, navigating too near the shore in violation of the statute of the state; (8) in not, .keepillg out of the way of the Baltio, which was' on her starboard hand. Tbat the Baltic was alRo ill fault for not giving..sufficient attention to the Beaman. and for' failing to stop and back when risk ol'c;ml1isIQn. was the attempt to oross ber bows,
In
Actioll for damage by collision.
'ReporteilbjEd""ard G. Benedi6t, Esq., of the New York ,bar.
J'EDERAL- ·BEPOBm)
vol. 41. /'J
Hyland
for claimant.' !'; ;' ,for defendant.
,BROWN, J; On July 29, 1889'jat about half past 8 o'clock in the morning, as the ferry-boat Baltic, upon a regular trip from Hamilton avenuei :Brooklyn, was approaching her slip near pier 2 at the Battery, came in collision with the libelant's canal-boat Moscow, loaded with coal, which was in tow of the H. Beaman, upon the tug's starboard side. Both boats were nearly stopped at the time; but the blow was sufficient to cause the 'canal-boat to sink about half an hour afterwards. The libel was filed to recover the damages io the boat and cargo.;:Theeollision was frorD three to five hundred feetotf the ferryboat's slip. The tug and tow had come from Weehawken, and were bouMup the East river. According to the testimony of the pilot of the tug,theyhad come out of the North river, keeping about3QO feet from the piers,. and following the line·of the sbore. The tide was strong flood in the East river. The pilots of both boats say that they did not notice each other until the Beaman was about off' pier 1, and the Baltic between distance Governor's island and Diamond ,: reMj both estimating apart, when first seen, at about a'thousand feet. The Baltic was going on her usual course in the though there is contradiction whether off Diamond reef she slackened her speed or stopped bel' Her chief pilot says she did not. Others testify that she did. The man was coming under a slow bell. The Baltic's pilot testifies that when about a thousand feet distant he'gave a signal of one whistle. This meant that he would go ahead of the Beaman. Getting no answer, he again blew one blast with his. wbistle when about six or seven hundred feet distant, and ported in order to make the necessary turn into her slip. He says that he then' saw the'Beamanstarboard, which made collision likelYiand that when about 300 feetapa.rt, he rang the bells t6 st6p and back strong; which was done, thougn not in time to avoid a sligq.tblow. The pilot of the Beaman,testifies that he heard no signal from the Baltic; tbat when he first saW the Baltic off the east end of Governor's island, she wason his starboard bow; and that pebted that she would go astern"ofhil'll. There is too much evidence that signals were given by the Baltic to permit me to <:iouht that fact., That they were not heard by the Beaman when so near, I can only ascribe to inattention. Without stating furtller detai.ls ofthe testimony" three faults on the part of the pilot of the Beaman seem to me to be clear: , (1) Inattention to the signals of Baltic. (2} Proceeding, near the shore, and impeding the accef\s of the ferry-boat toher slip, instead of going further towards the middle of t}Hi river and a13tern of by law. Laws N. Y, 1;848, 0 ·. 321 i 4 Edm,.,St. 60jThe Maryland, 19 Fed. Rep. 551. Most 'ofthe collisions in tMt region arise from this eanse. (3) Having the Baltic on his starboard hand, and· knpwing her necessary course and swing int(} her slip, he did not keep out of her way, as he was bound to do. Thf John S. Darcy, 29 F,ed., Rep.·,644; affirmed, 38 Fed. Rep. 619. ,. I
THE BALTIC.
605
As respects the Baltic, I cannot find that she stopped and backed as soon as she ought to have done, namely,when the risk of collision was apparent; nor can I find, upon the evidence, that such early attention was given to the Beaman and tow as ought to have been given. Considering the much greater speed of the Baltic, there can be no doubt that the Beaman and her tow had so far rounded the Battery as to be visible to the Baltic from the time the latter left her slip, and that at that time, and for some time afterwards, they could not have been upon the port hand of the Baltic. but must have been either ahead or on her starboard bow; nor can I doubt that. this relative position continued until after the Baltic had passed Diamond reef, and had ported her helm, so as to round the rules for the Baltic to into her slip. It was not a compliance wait until within a thousand feet of the Beaman ane her tow before heeding them or giving them any signal. Had the Beaman been noticedearlier, and her progress watched, it would have been plain that she was likely to embarrass the Baltic's approach to her slip, and that she threatened collision if both kept on. I have no doubt, also, that such was the evident situation at the time when the Baltic did notice the Beaman and her tow, and when she gave her first whistle, and that her whistle was given for that very reason, and not out of any mere formal compliance with the rule. The boats were already near. There was actual danger of collisioll , unless proper measures were immediately taken; and the fact that the Baltic received no answer from the Beaman Baltic that her signal and her design to go was a sufficient notice to ahead were not heard and understood, or else would not be heeded, and that the Beaman was not taking the measures which she ought to take. In the. situation as it actually was, and as was apparent before the second signal was given by the Baltic, there was not merely risk of collision. but almost a certainty of it, unless the Baltic should give way. The by the Beaman made little difference in her situation, and the Baltic kept on for length after the did not.affect the result. second,$ignal before backing, and still without any answer from the Boo- ' the Baltic's duty, under such qircumstances, to have given man. It ... The rules of navigation, and the policy of the law for the way preservation of the lives and property of third persons, impose even upon the privileged vessel the duty of giving way in the. presence of immediate danger of collision. Had she backed when she. sounded the secthe coJIision would have been avoided. ond signal 500 or 600 feet For not doing this in time I must hold the Baltic also to blame. The Columbia. 25 Fed. Rep.844; The Mercedes, 36 Fed. Rep. 602; TheFan:wood,. 28 Fed. Rep. 373; The O. H. SeujJ, 32 Fed. Rep.· 237, affirmed on for half the damages and costs, and appeal. Each must be for any part thereof uncollected from the other.
606 en.l/ (!I::.. :
r;'.:,fJ:':yjJ,,; "11', I . n ·
;f;!L+:,
l,t:
il';';
.. Co.''I1.,TH,E'ED\vIN HAWIJtt.,, ; ", " : ", " ·
:
)'
I,,' , ,
-'.'
q: ,
"
!
'_.
, " :
CAUSED BY ','
OP
the masts ofa lilY' Bunk in the river,tnedisabloo. vessel, haviDgt\O rv.ddll!-", Q.lI'@eDsheer,':Which;t.h!l,tug was unable to pr!lvent, alid t)J.e of Which, in tJ!e st1'O\).geb\>-tide, was wcarry the tug ,the masts of , thesllnk\:Jn steam-ship. '):Jilor tlie damage the owners of the steam-Ship libeled' the ·t",g..,,'! Beld'"th.,vessel, WlIoS" PQ neg,ugen,eEl, the pa,rt of wastUlJ,'iD there the ,to, thel!oid of the disabled p.ot,withstandi\log ,the fog; there no negligence in her '" me'tbOd' of towing, whib1'i \+as the' only method possible ; and, as' the sheer of the .\ wail the imm!l4iaw alid lloleC4'Use Df t)J.e accident was occasioned by.the ,dillsbled Y!lSsel,and +he prevent it, or t1letug to anticipate or ,withstand it, the'tug WaS nO,t hable for tile Ilamag!l. " , ", '::, 1 (
r;; ,\.iWgj iDa",ery. dimlJl!ffllg,:wept !io the aid9f -,a disabled which she. took :' W, Ww. While tow!ni,her t() the sbore; pD a, COurlle wbich WOUld. have ,her
·
iWheeler, CUrtis tIc Godkin, for i1"G'ar.Pente1' tIc Mosher, fot"-elaimant.· ;:T,I· : .
, Actiori'for damage by collision.
pltny Wnssunkin the North river,itrid Mthetime in' question lay su});. metged,with her two-masts standing above the water some 20 or 30 feet. Ofithe 25th Of :B'ebrdary; 1889, the tug-boat Edwin ,Hawley, while 1yingata pier in the North 'river. in adehse fog,leilrnedthat a ferry-boat hdbecdme disabled in the river. She thereupon put out into the fog to the, ferry-boat; , .· The·ferry-bdat .was in time found, and. thereUpon the tug took herin'tow by twolines,-one leading from the stem bitts ofthe tug to the port, lind onetu the starboard bitt of the ferryboat,-and endeavored to: take of safety on the north sid$ of the river. The fog was still exceedii'lgly dense. Thetide was strong the:tUgto knowtpatshe was nearingthe New York sho1'e;bl1tit was impossible. for' the tug to know her position in the river.' . In nearing the New York shore, the course of the tug carried her ashortdistatice inside t1>,e sunkensMatlier;and, while in this way pasSing the mast dfthe'sUllken steam-ship; It;sudden sheer to westward was having no rudder, took given the tug by' a sheer which the towards shore; When tug-boat was thus sheered, she by the strong ebb-tide then running, was caught on her steamer, which' was and carrieli 'down upOll'the'mast 'of brokerioff bythecolliSidb.;'to the daUla.geof the steatn-ship, as claimed, 65,000. '. . . ,. . The evidence being that the mast was n'ot at any time seen by any one upon the tug, the contention on the part of the libelant is that a negligent lookout on the part of the tug caused the disaster; and reliance is IR!lport!ld by Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of th!l N!lw York bar.
13EN1mtcr,J. A steam-ship belonging to the Atlas Steam-Ship Com.o.