The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-25
Learned Opinion by District
Judge Morrow on the
Subject.
Of Great Interest to Owners OF
Shipping in American
Waters.
John D. Spreckels Bros. Company Not
Liable for Damages to the Mate
of the Danieison.

yesterday delivered a learned opinion
which will be of great interest to the own
ers of shipping and others.
The action was libel brought by Louis
A. Peterson against John D. Spreckels g.
Bros. Company to recover 1000 damages
for the loss of one Of Pederson's legs
caused by the parting of towline while
the company's tug Vigilant was towing
the schooner S. Danielson, of which Pc
derson was mate.
Judgment, with costs. was given by
Judge Morrow in favor of the John d.
Spreckels & Bros. Company.
Peterson, the Iibelant, was represented
by Fl. W. Hutton, and Samuel NJ. Short
ridge appeared for the John D. Spreckels
q Bros. Company.
District Judge Morrow's decision, which
is one of great Importance to the towboat
interests OF this coast, Is as follows:
This is a libel in personam by Louis A. Peder-
son to recover damages in the sum OF 100000
from the John D. Spreckels & Bros. Company.
The libelant was the mate OF the schooner S.
Danielson. At the time of the accident, which
occurred on the morning OF the 9Th of August,
1895. the schooner was being towed in the
waters OF the Santa Barbara Channel by the
tug Vigilant, owned by the respondent. The
towline was made fast TO the paiibitt and had
been passed through the side or breast ehoek
On the port bow. There were two chocks on
the port bow the forward and side or breast
chock. on the starboard side there was only
come OF the forward chock or how it had been
removed does not appear.
Inc llbelant, as mate of the schooner, had
himself supervised the manner OF making the
towl1ne fast to the schooner, and at the lime
OF the accident was standing between the bitt
and the chock, on the inboard side of the tow
line, engaged in parceiing the line. The tow
ing had been going on for II short period OF
time, Varlously estimated by the witnesses a
from four to twenty minutes, when the chock
through which the line had been passed broke
or was carried away, and the nbelant was
struck by the line, thrown against the capStan
and his leg broken. That limb was so severely
injured that amputatlon was made necessary.
1t is claimed on behalf OF the libelant that
the accident was caused by the negligence of
those in charge of the tugboat, in towing at
such an excessive speed that the chock
through which the towline had been passed
was pulled in two, there by causing the tow
line to catch the libelant's leg and throw hin
against the capstan, resulting IN the serious
injury referred 10. The res pondent denies any
negligence in towing st an excessive speed
and claims that The accident was caused
primarily BIZ the contributory negligence Of
the libelant himself, to which the bad steering
OF the part OF the schooner, as con tended, also
contributed.
The questions involved are purely OF fact,
and involve to great degree, the credt blIty.
OF the witnesses on both sides. TIE fest qheS-
ton is as 10 whether tho line was Inadr fast
properly to the schooner by those on bonrd OF
Der who were acting under the mates orders.
Evidence vas introduced on behalf of the
spon aent tending TO snow that WDeu line Is
made fast to the pallbitt, as il was in the case
al bar, IL should be passed through the for
ward choc6, and II il is made fast to tie
windlass- bit ii should be passed through the
side or breast chock.
1t is considered better seamanship to pursue
This method Tor the reason that the lead wi /
be more straight and the strain on the chock
and the lead itself less In the case at bar, IS
previously stated, The tow!ine was passed
through the breast chock and made fast to
the pallbltt, which was not in accordance with
good seananship. AS ii was made fast to the
pallbitt it should have passed through the
forward chock, or being placed through the
breast chock II should have been made fast to
the windlass-pitt Either one of these ways
would have obviated the unequal aud unnec-
essary strain which results when the line is
passed thr ough anu made fast as it was In tn is
Case.
As this was done under the orders of the IL
belant, who himself supervised making fast
the vessels end OF the towline 1t results that
If the carrying away or breaking away of the
breast chock was caused proximately by the
unequal and unnecessary strain placed upon
it, this would debar the libelan from recover
ing any damages for his in urlas from the re-
spondent company for the reason that he con-
tributed to the accident and injury himself.
Aside from the fact that the libelant person
fast to the schooner, it is well settled that the
tow is generally held responsible for. the man
agement OF her end of the towline. As was
said in The Merrimac, Sawyer, $50, II Fed.
Cas-. 1875: "While in this case the tow had her
master and crew on board, yet they had nothing
TO do with the navigation of either vessel ex-
cept to Steer the tow in the wake of the tug,
to work her pump and handle her end OF the
towline." See, also, upon the general duties
OF the tow, The Margarer Bliss. 353, 16 Fed.
hs csmp apI Emilia 4 Fed r $50 the JACOB
Brandow 80 Fed. 4. S31; the 1nvertrossachs,
etc.. 50 Fed. r. 1914.
/ am convinced from the evidence that the
manner in which the toWline was made fast
and passed through the breast chock on the
schooner was what caused the unequal strain
on the chock and carried it away. 1t is, how
ever strenuously eonreDded by counsel for the
libelant that the efficient ana proximate cause
of the breaking OF carrying away of the breast
chock was the excessive speed at which the
tug was towing the schooner. Testimony was
introduced in support of this contention tend
ing TO show That the tug was going q the rate
of nine TO ten miles an hour, and that this
speed under the circumstances was excessive
and caused the breaking of the chock.
This testimony, however, Is fatty contra
dicted by witnesses on behalf of the re-
spondsnt, whose testimony strongly tends TO
show that the tug was going no faster than
six or seven miles an hour, and that this rate
under the conditions of weather then preyail-
Ing, "as reasonable and proper. The weather
was CAIN and pleasant he water smooth. The
schooner's register was 81 tons gross. SO tons
net 91.9 ieet in length, 276 feet in bread III
and 6.8 feet in depth. On this particular oc-
casion she carried tons of iron. She was
about ten years old. Whether or nor there
was anything faulty about the chock itsaif
does not appear from the evidence. IT seems
however, that the forward chock on the star
board bow was gone. When this happened or
what caused its disappearance does not an
pear. Upon the whole of the evidence nre
sented on this point l am inclined to accent
the testimony of the witnesses for the re.
spondent as being more reliable and sccnrateI
IL Is true that there are some discrepancies
ana contradictions in the testimony. but mon
the whole of the evidence | come to the con
cluslon that the tug was going not more than
seven miles an hour and that this, under the
circumstances then prevailing was not an I'M
reasonable aud improper rate of speed and
was not the proximate cause of the breaking
OF the breast chock. 1t is further claimed by
respondent that bad steering by the CAPTAIN
o. the schooner who was in charge of the
neim, contributed to the breaking of the chock
py increasing the strain thereon But how
ever tnat may be, am satisfied that the acct
GENT was due, for the most part, 10 the manner
IN which the line was passed through the
prgast cnock and made fast TO the pallbitt.
mere Is no question as to the suficency or
staolilty OF the rope. To whom it belonged,
Whether to the schooner or to the California
ron ana Wreck1ng Company, is not entirely
clear: put one thing is certain, and that is
that IL did not belong to the tug Ii was
new rope, having been used but few times
before this occasion. 1t broke some fifteen
minutes after the accident which befeu the
iipelani. Counsel for dbelant claims that
o fnc f1<a< - 49,