Case ID: f2d_7/html/0119-01.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 HARLEM RIVER NO. 1. THE MARGARET MONK.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 6, 1925.
    No. 290.
    Towage <§=>il(7) — Master of steam tug negligent in manner of passing under bridge with two barges in tow.
    Experienced master of steam tug with two barges in tandem tow, attempting to pass under difficult bridge at flood tide, in a manner which he must have known would cause first barge to strike abutment, making striking of second barge inevitable, held negligent.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
    Libel by the Wayne Transportation Company against the steam tug Harlem River No. 1, J. Raymond Russell claimant, in which the coal boat Margaret Monk, Thomas J. Monk claimant, was impleaded as respondent under admiralty rule 56. From a decree for libelant dismissing petition as to the Monk, the claimant first named appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The opinion of Campbell, District Judge, in the court below, here follows:
    “On the petition of the claimants the coal boat Margaret Monk was impleaded as a respondent under the fifty-sixth rule in admiralty.
    “The steam tug Harlem River No. 1 took in a tandem tow the coal barges Margaret Monk and Wayne No. 9, bound under High Bridge. The day was clear; the tide flood. Both barges were light; the Monk, being the hawser boat, was on two short hawsers, and the Wayne No. 9 wa,s mad© fast astern as dose up as possible, with corner lines and cross lines.
    “In this position the tug attempted to take the two barges under High Bridge, and, this being a very hard bridge to pass under safely, the master of the tug directed the barge captains to make their lines tight and keep their boats close together to prevent injury. The lines were made fast by the captain of the Monk, as directed by the master of the tug, and the linos from the Wayne to the Monk, and from the Monk to the Wayne, were kept fast until, as the tug passed with her tow under the bridge, she allowed the Monk to scrape against the abutment, then strike and bound off, which brought the Wayne into contact with the abutment of said bridge, causing her lines to part and the Wayne to go adrift and strike the abutment on the other side.
    “After taking the Monk through under the bridge, the tug returned and picked up the Wayne, which had received substantial damages caused by her striking the abutment of said bridge. In order to take two barges in a tandem tow safely under said bridge on a flood tide, it is necessary, because of the effect of the tide, to pass under the bridge in a particular manner, so that the first barge will not touch the abutment, because, if the first barge touches the abutment, it is impossible to prevent the second barge from striking.
    “In the instant case the tug did not start through under the bridge in the manner necessary for a safe passage, and her master, who was experienced in such navigation, should not have attempted to go through in the mariner he did, because he must have known that danger was imminent, and this constituted negligence.
    “The master of the tug' said that the lines were all right before starting, as did also the captain of the barge Wayne No. 9, and I am of tbe opinion that there was no slack in the lines, but that they were safely made fast when the Monk came into contact with the abutment, and the injuries sustained by the Wayne No. 9 were due to the negligence of the tug in allowing the Monk to come into contact with the abutment and thereby causing the parting of the lines and the striking of the abutment by the Wayne No. 9. Neither the Margaret Monis nor the Wayne No. 9 had motive power, and neither of said boats was in any way to blame.
    “A decree may be entered against the steam tug Harlem River No. 1 in favor of the libelant, with costs and the usual order of reference, and dismissing the petition against the Margaret Monk, with costs against the petitioners claimants.
    “Settle decree on notice.”
    Alexander & Ash, of New York City (Edward Ash, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Richard F. Lenahan, of New York City, for claimant of -the Margaret Monk.
    Before ROGERS, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed, on the opinion in the court below.