Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1907-05-17
DECISION RENDERED
Continued from PAGE u

starting to take the Mary e. Foster
out to sea, signalled by whistle to the
dredger as to which side of the dredg.
er she should take; the dredger replied
with reply signal that she should
take the Eva side of the channel Tho
tow, upon passing between the dredg-
er and the Eva side of the channel,
grounded, and after some Intellectual
attempts to pull her off she foated off
Mt the next high tide, whereupon the
Fearless made an effort to tow he,
back into the harbor by attaching q
line to her stern and towing her stern
first Under these circumstances the
schooner, under the tow of the Fear.
less, ran into the reef on the Waikiki
side of the channel and was more or
less injured by the two STANDINGS. The
.ibellants brought this action against
both OF the libellees but upon different
grounds. The allegation against the
Pacific is that she was grossly neglig-
ent in giving the signal referred to
lor the tow to pass on the Eva side OF
the channel, which act of negligence
is alleged to be one of the proximate
Sdlu
schooner. The act of the Fearless in
proceeding with her tow in response
to the signal mentioned is alleged to
be an act of gross negligence owing to
The narrowness of the space available
lor said passage, and the second
grounding of the schooner is charged
to be due in part TO the negligent tow
ing OF such schooner by the Fearless
and in part as an indirect consequence
Of the negligence which led to her first
stranding.
Judge Dole finds cause of action
set out in the libel against the Fear
less. She had the schooner in tow
when both STANDINGS took place.
AS to the fourth ground of exception,
the question of negligence, the signal
OF the dredger to take the Eva side
or the passage did not relieve the Fear
less of responsibility in going there.
She was engaged in the business of
towing vessels in and out of the har-
Dor of Honolulu; and consequently was
acquainted with the channel in all
Weathers and tides, and should have
known whether or not the EVA side of
the channel between the dredger and
the reef was safe for her tow. For
her, therefore, to have assumed the
FISK OF attempting such passage, which
is alleged to have been unsafe owing
to insufficient width, was fault which
makes her liable for the consequences.
The syllabus is as follows:
Act of navigation-Signallin by al
dredger i'll a fixed position:
dredger at work in fixed position
in a ship channel signals, in answer to
the lnqulring signal of an approaching
lug with its tow, that certain side
Of the channel is open for her to pass
the tug attempts the passage and its
tow is stranded. Held, that such sig
mailing by the dredger was not an act
81 navigation that rendered it. liable
to attachment
Admiralty Observation-Disclosures re-
ceived by ship in charge of tug.
Held, under the circumstances ser
forth above, followed by second
of the tow while in charge OF
The tug, that an action lies in admir-
atty against such tug.
Liability of tug for injury to its tow
under signal to proceed:
Under the first mentioned c!rcum-
stances, tug is not relieved of re-
possibility because of signal favor
ADle to her proceeding through the
passage indicated
Liability for secondary consequences
d a negligent act-Interterruption
Liability for secondary consequences
d negligent act is relieved by the
Of "A second negligent act
~ oVerpowerinS force,
An act of necessity justifahle: A
necessary act IS not a negligent act |
'nless It is negligently done,
General allegation OF negligence
+m'tsene}, A mere general allega-
Ton ol negligence Ia sufficient where !
necessary ACT is attempted and lalls /
'nder conditions likely p cause lail- /
fr even lhough proper care aud skill
5 exercised, !