Case ID: f_280/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE SARANAC. THE LAMPASAS. Appeal of CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 6, 1922.)
    No. 217.
    Collision <@=3.82(2) — Steamship held not at fault for not going ahead full speed in emergency.
    Where the finding that the weather conditions required fog signals to be sounded was supported by the evidence, and neither tug nor steamship sounded such signals, so that both were at fault, and the tug was also at fault for failure to maintain a proper lookout, the steamship held not at fault for failing to go full speed ahead on sighting the tug, where the collision was imminent and probably inevitable at that time.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
    Petition in admiralty for limitation of liability by the Cornell Steamboat Company, as owner of the steam tug Saranac, with separate libels by Kate Dougherty and by Oliver Gildcrsleeve & Sons, Inc., against the steamship Lampasas, of which the Mallory Steamship Company was claimant, and in which tlic steam tug Saranac, the Cornell Steamboat Company, claimant, was impleaded. From decrees holding both vessels at fault, the Cornell Steamboat Company appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Robert S. Erskíne and Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox & Keat-ing, all of New York City, for appellant Cornell Steamboat Co.
    Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Feary, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and Frederick Pennell, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Mallory S. S. Co.
    Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

These causes grow out of a collision occurring in the North River, off Pier 25, Manhattan. The trial court found as facts: (1) That at and before collision the weather was such that fog signals should have been sounded by navigating vessels; (2) that such whistles were not sounded by either vessel; and (3) that the tug Sar-anac did not have a lookout properly stationed and attending to his duty. With these findings we agree, and they are assuredly sufficient to require affirmance of decrees holding both vessels at fault

We express no opinion in respect of the alleged failure of the Sara-nac to keep her tow straight behind her, and we disapprove of the suggestion (it is hardly more) that it was a fault on the part of the steamship Lampasas not to go full speed ahead when she sighted the Saranac. When the tug and tow were seen through the fog, collision was probably inevitable; certainly a position of imminent and almost certain danger had been produced by mutual violation.of the fog rules. Such a situation having been proven, it is not profitable to speculate as to whether collision might have been avoided by taking the “last chance” of full speed ahead under a hard over wheel.

Decrees affirmed, with one bill of costs.