The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-04-19

Is that there were small lanterns on the
decks of the six and seven boats Count
ing from the dock) and like lantern
on the Flagstaff of the outside boat.
The fog, however, was SO dense that
these lights were practically useless as
a warning. Libellant's boat was the
sixth from the shore; the Kennebec
struck her on the starboard quarter.
AS to the conduct Of those in charge
of the coal dock and the outlying ves-
sells, it is contended by appellant that
the vessels did more than their duty by
maintaining the lights they claim to
have displayed, citing, The Martin
4 Dalman, 70 f. r. 1917 The Granite
State, Wall 80; and L'Hommedeu v.
The Mischief, SO It. r. $40. The rules
concerning lights and sound signals
during fogs, which were in force at the
time, prescribed lights for q vessel at
/, anchor, and the ringing of a bell when
at anchor in fog; but are silent as to
vessels moored to a pier. The cases
cited hold that vessels SO moored need
show no light but the situation was
vastly different in each case from what
it was in the case at bar. The schooner
with which the Martin Dallman's tow
collided was properly moored ''her stern
west of the west end of the wharf and
her bows at the east end, around which
the Dallman attempted to turn in order
to enter the canal. The testimo-
ny is clear that the schooner was
moored out Of the way Of vessels going
into xxx canal" The barge with
which the Granite State collided lay
across the end of Pier 20, East River;
she was well secured in her place, but
had on board no watch or light; the
laws of the port Of New York, as was
proved, not making it obligatory on
vessels of this sort moored at wharves
to have either" The tug with which
the Mischief was in collision was lying
alongside Of her boats in tow, how
many does not appear, which were fast
to the shore of Newtown Greek; that
case is to some extent similar to the
one at bar; it was held that mot being
in motion, but moored alongside other
vessels attached to the Shore" she was
not guilty of the only fault charged
against her, failure to have a light. In
the Express, As F. r. 1928, the vessel
struck was held excused for failure to
give fog signals, but she tiled UP at her
usual mooring place along the southerly
side of a dock, with her head towards
the shore, and her stern a few feet in
side of the outer end of the pier" The
rules provide fog signals for the vessels
under way" and define those words as
meaning when she is not at anchor, or
made fast to the shore, or aground.
They also provide that "a vessel when
at anchor shall at intervals of not more
than one minute. ring the bell rapidly
for about five seconds" There is no
provision for a vessel moored to a
wharf; presumably it may be assumed
that it was not expected that when so
situated she should do anything. But a
situation such as the one at bar seems
to be a casus omissus; it might not I'M
fairly be argued that boat tied up as
was libellant's was not moored to the
wharf at all. The district judge states
the casetersely: eff vessel may not
anchor in the channel one hundred or
one hundred and seventy-five feet from
the pier without taking due measures
in the midst of a fog to give notice of
her presence, by what right may she tie
up outside other boats in the whole oc-
cupying nearly half the channel. Her
position is the same. In the one case
che is held by her anchor; in the other
by her connection with the other boats"
We concur in his conclusion: "It is OBJ
jected that the statute does not re-
quire lights or signals, Even 80, COM
mon prudence demands that ships ap-
propriating quarter or third of
~ .1,o Is >J1,, Is
quate means to make their presence
known"
AS the question is presented here, it is
not so much whether this particular
barge No. II failed to comply with some
rule or omitted to do something which
she, aside from any rule ought to have
done, thus depriving herself of right !
to recover or requiring a division of the
damages. 1t is from the standpoint of
the Kennebec that it is to be consid- |
cred; she is the one charged with i'm
proper navigation, and her navigation
is to be judged by a consideration Of
what her pilot had right to expect. |
If he was entitled to assume that, rule |
or no rule, no one would be so devoid Of
common sense as to make barge fast |
In a travelled fairway, and leave her |
there exposing life and property to con-
slant peril during a dense fog without |
any note of warning, 1t makes |
no difference what particular person
should have given such warning. No |
II was the sixth boat from the dock |
and the third from the outside; signal |
warning of the presence of the other |
vessels would have protected her; she |
lid not come there herself, her tug left |
1er, and the bargee may fairly have as
;umed that the tug would look after her
safety if the place was perilous or be-
,ame so by weather changes: indeed, it
night have been expected that the en-
erprsng coal-dock owner who devised
his plan for turning a highway of COM
nerce into a private anchorage would
axe some action to prevent risk to the
ives and property which he placed
here exposed to grave peril whenever
fog shut in Whoever YVES in fault
or the failure to give a warning Of No.
rs presence appropriate to the situa-
ionfis immaterial. Somebody ought to
rave done so, and the pilot of the Ken
lebec was entitled to assume that some
,ody would.
The faults of navigation charged
Lgainst the Kennebec in the libel are: