Case ID: f_56/html/0127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BBOWRT, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE BALTIMORE. THE DASORI. HOME INS. CO. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
    (District Court, S. D. New York.
    April 10, 1893.)
    CoLf.rsiox — Steam Vessels Oiuissixo.
    Collision occurred between a scow insured by libelant, when going up the North river in tow of the lug D., and the ferryboat leaving her slip in New York to cross the river. The D. whistled twice, but the pilot of the ferryboat did ikh hood ihe signal, and kept on to cross the bows of the tow after he haft observed her -threatening approach. Held, that ¡he ioirvboai, was in fault; but aw the wiarboard band rule required theIX to keep out of the way, and as slie attempted to cross the bow of the ferryboat, held, that she took the risk of the attempt. She was also in fault for not heeding the long whistle of the B., and in not giving danger signals. The damages were therefore divided.
    In Admiralty. Libel of Hie Home Insurance Company against tiie Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of tbe City of Hew York, and also against (lie Pennsvlvania Railroad Company, to recover for a, collision. Decree for libelant.
    Carpenter & Mosher, for libelant.
    Ward & Sterling-, for (lie Mayor, etc., of City of Hew York.
    Robinson, Biddle & Ward, for Pennsylvania R. Co.
   BBOWRT, District Judge.

About 5 o’clock in tbe afternoon of May 20, 1890, as dumping scow bio. 6 was going up tbe North river in tow on tbe starboard side of tbe city’s steam tug Dasori, bound for tbe foot of Canal street, tbe scow came in collision with tbe railroad company’s ferryboat Baltimore, wbicb bad just come out of ber slip at Desbrosses street, and tbe port quarter of tbe ferryboat carried away part of tbe bow of tbe scow. Tbe above libel was filed to recover tbe damages.

There is considerable contradiction in tbe details of tbe evidence. But there is one fault wbicb stands out clearly on each side, for wbicb I find no legal justification or excuse, viz.:

1. On tbe part of the ferryboat: That her pilot did not observe tbe Dasori’s signal of two whistles, and when arriving near tbe mouth of tbe slr£>, a point from wbicb be could undoubtedly perceive tbe near and threatening position of tbe Dasori, gave one whistle, and went on in tbe face of danger of collision, instead of reversing and stopping at tbe mouth of tbe slip, as be might and should have done under such circumstances, in accordance with old rule 21. The Greenpoint, 31 Fed. Rep. 231; The Rockaway, 38 Fed. Rep. 856, affirmed 43 Fed. Rep. 544.

2. On tbe part of tbe Dasori: That she did not take proper maneuvers to keep out of tbe way, by stopping and reversing as she might have done when she saw tbe Baltimore coming out of ber slip, tbe Dasori being bound to keep out of tbe way, as tbe Baltimore was on ber own starboard band. But instead of that, the Dasori gave two whistles, undertaking to cross ber bow, wbicb she could not do without collision. She was also in fault for not attending to tbe long whistle given by tbe Baltimore before leaving ber slip and not governing herself accordingly; either by giving at once a danger signal to apprise tbe Baltimore of ber presence, tbe view of tbe Baltimore being obscured by tbe shed between them, or by stopping at once and reversing, which would have avoided collision.

Tbe libelant is, therefore, entitled to recover damages against both respondents, with costs.