THE J. D. PErER&.
269
THE MAZEAS
J. D. THE
PETERS.
et al. v.
J. D.
PETERS
et al.
(D£StrictOourt, N. D. CaU!ornf..a. COLLISION-BETWEEN STEAM AND SAIL-EvmmrpE.
April 5, 1890.)
A steamer and sloop were approaching neal'ly end on; the former going 10 miles an hour. the latter 6. The master and watchman of the steamer testified that the· sloop was fj.rst seen 3 miles distant, and 1 point on their starboard bow. both, lights being visible; t'\1at the steamer kept lier course for 2 or 3 minutes, when, the sloop's red lfght disappearing, they altered their course one-half point to port, exposing their green light, and kept this course for a few minntes, when the sloop, being about 100 yards away, changed her course, and c.ame up into the wind, exposing her red light; that the steamer stopped and backed, but was struck on her starboard bow by the sloop's port. The three persons on the sloop denied hav,ing changed their course. Held, that the steamer had not sustained the burden on hevto show that the collision was not her fault.
In Admiralty. Suit in admiralty by J. Mazeas and others against the D. Peters and the California Navigation & Improvement Company. D. T. S1tllivan. for Pillsbury &; Blanding, for claimants. ' " HOFFMAN, J. On the mornIng of November 17,1889, a CUITEild between the sloop Solferino, of the burden of 19.66 tons, and the steam,;boat J., D. Peters. The course of the sloop was W. N. W.; that of the steamer, -about E; S·. E. Thee vessels were thus approaching each other'riearlyend on: Each vessel discovered the other-at a distance of two and a half or thr.eemiles. The sloop was, as stated by the mastel' one point on his starboard bow, three miles off. It is obvious that the collision was caused by gross negligence or mismanagement on the part of one or both of the vessels. In all cases of collis-i ion. between steamer8 and sailing vessels, the former are presumptively in fault; for it is the right of tbe sailing vessel to keep her course, arid the "duty of t.he steamer to adopt such as 'will avoid . her." St. John v. 10 How. 557; The Oregmt v. Rocoa,18 How. 572. In Leavitt Vi Jewett, 11 Blatchf. 421, Judge WOODRUFF, affirming the decision ofBJ_ATCHFORD,J., observes: ; "It was the duty of the steamer to keep:out of the way of the sailing vessel, which seen by her. or oUg'ht to have been seell by heriat a suJfleient. distance, aml room was for any Which the steamer desired to makeJ'or the pllrpose.8he dfdnot avoid :t,hesch90ner, For the collision which eUsued. she is presumptively responsible. 1 '.fhe burden ohlJecusIng the collision r6fjts upon her; She has attempted such, excuse by imputing to the schooner a change of'coul'se defeating her own measures, claimed 'to' have been properly taken.' Such change of course is denied by the witnesse.s from the schOoner. * * * It. i8nQb el'loughthat the steamer has, upon ,this sole ground of defense.' I« * *, lam conto h<M that the d(lfense is not satisfactorily In. theljingUl;lge of the caSll8 cited from the supraw.ecourt'l' the defense l;Dust alm.ostcollclusively , -
2'lQ.
FEDERAL BEPORTER
,i vol. 42.
The account given by the master and the watchman or the steamer is substantially as fonows: The sloop. was first discerned by the steamer one point on her starboard bow, and distant three miles., The speed of the steamer wasabotil-lO rniles' per :hOUf; That Of the sloop, sailing free, with a strong £I.<ilOd-tjde)n herfavor, was about six miles, probably more. The vessels were thus approaching each other at the rate of than, amile in !ninutes, as they were sailing nearly end ,00:. At firsh when the vessels were about three miles apart, both The steamer continued on her course three minutes, whenthE/sIQop's red or port light disappElar,e4.{:Ieltving only her'green light):U'view. The vessels must then the distance between them one-half or three-fourths of them more than tWQ WHee.apart. Upon the disappearlighi, the steamer altered her course about one-half So point to port, exposing her green light to the sloop's green light. The steamer kept on this course, or edging more to port, "for a few minutes;" aXlltN,thenl'st thing the captain knew" was that the slOop came right up into tlle.wj,nd, exposing ,her red steamer instantly stopped and backed, but too late to avoid the collision. ' :The ,sloop struck the steamer's starboard bow with her own !port bow a few feet from .her stern. When the sloop made this change of course, she was distant from the steamer't;300ording to'.. the watchman, 100 yards. and according to the (',uptain, 250 or 300 feet.' IHhe sloop had not changed her, course, the vesaeI,s,:iVould, as these witnesses assert. ha.ve passed each other, starboardto;8tarboal'd,at 'a distance, as the watchman says,of not less than 100.£eet·. : With. regard "to this account of or excUse for the collision, which thei is asked ,to accept as:satisfactory,:it is to be observed: (1) That. by the captain's' own showing"the vessels must have been at least;ll.,wile apart when the sloop showed her green light.· Thesteamer promptly altered her course toport,thusexposing her own green light. 'I'heYefisels were thus,aroile ,or more distant from each other, sailing on divergent. or atleast paraHel,courses. If they continued on these courses llllinutes,?' I, Dndit dimeult to when the sloop ea,me into. th6wwind, she. CQuid have been within 100 yards or 250 or 300 fee:t of the Ilteame1'.. StilUess,how,ifshe 'had not come into the wind, the vessels could have passed within 100 feet·of each other. (2) To enable her, to.#Itrike' the steamer's: starboard bow'with ,her ,own port bow, as lltated,'shemust, within 100 yards,hEi.ve made a change in her course the especutllyan,be'was rtlnfjllng'before thew,rnd, WIth her nraln-sheet free, lost Jlle, w,i,nd, aOIL cross, the strong pe£ore, j!.rOun,<,l far, to present .I;1er .port bow to the .(3) The attributed to the sI00pwasn<llt'8lliordinary,fault'of searnanship. It betrays grossincom'ortllse' 'total Ibss ofpreSeIiQe 6f:mipd. Ther,e is no evidence t6:sHtiw thit:t'the' person's In6hArge '6f sloop were not reasonably C<1mpetent''tqitlaviRate' their little . >If they were panicstricken, and lost their heads, it'coWd:J(ully have fear O'f a.
the
catastrophe they considered imminent.' :. If so" the.steamer had no right to expose her to such real or apparent danger; and it is'alIilostiJiconceivable that they could have entertained such sels had for "some minutes," and for at least a mile, been sailing, starboard tostarboard,mpljyergent ,or.pa.ro.llel courses. The nature and extex,.t of the damage sustained by the sloop, and the fact- that the steamer seem to show that the sloop was struck bYithe steamer, steamer by the by the claimant's witnesses; thefacttl;lat far. more injury was inflictedithan.could be cause,4 the impaot of two vesa:eI$, one of which, :by stopping and backiQg.; had lost her lleAodway I, w):lile the sails of the other were shivering. in .tp.ewipp, lendsadditionl,t]. improbability to the a.ccount ofrtbe aeby claimant'!!witnMSes.· With regard to the testimony on · the ,plU]t pfthe libelan,ts,..it is enough to say that all of the three persoDS · on board the positively. 4any.having· ,-her course, or· hav,the green, the: steamer 1,lntil the Il)omentof the COllision. set up for the steamer. in this case ia not unfamiliar to the In Han6Y ,v. Packet ·,00.,.23 How. 291, Mr.·JustiCle ' ,o.Bgt it [tbe answer] allegesBs aDeltCnSe that, whfie tlie steam-boataltd . 8choone:r l'Iuddenly changed her · CQurl5er.ll-,ndran under PIe .bows of the stl!llmer. cuse' ustlliIIy: re30rted to for the pnrpose oJ is ll1Waysirnprobable, and generalIy'false. H ' . . i'
Tilis is tile stereotyped .exa, carelesl'l collision, )t .' . . .
I,,;;
:!,n'tl:l.ecase atbar,it,wou14 not be diffioultto suggest anexplanatHm · Qr:. collision much more probable than that offered by the claimants. But jt',ia unpecessary. 'It is enough that the claimants are .presump,tivelyltable fQl' the accident, and that the burden of :proof is' on them·to show'tp thesatisfa'ction.of.th1l CQurt that the steamer was not in-fault. have failed to do. Decree for libelants. .,
THEB.\yQUEEN. 1 . STANTON , ,
et alr t1.T1IE 'BAY. QUEEN.'
cd J
(Di8trict Oourt, S. D. New York. April 9,1890.) OoLLIllIOW-:MllTUAL FAULT-STEAMER AND SAIL-BOAT BEOALMED-LAOK
oJ'Row-LoOlt!. When a small sail-boat lay becalmed, her condition being visible to a steam-boat with a barge along-side, which approached her head on, between the Brothers and Riker's Island, in the East river, and collision ensued between the vessels, held, that the steam,boat was in fault for running down the sail-boat; but al.Bo held, that the latter was to blame for the lack of proper oars and row-locks in place, to aid in getting out of danger in such an emergency. The damage. were t.herefore divided.
I
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.