Case Name: LEO v. McCOLLUM et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1901-04-16
Citations: 107 F. 742
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEO v. McCOLLUM et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 107
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
LEO v. McCOLLUM et al.
(District Court, E. D. New York.
April 16, 1901.)
L Obstructions at Dock — Injury to Vessel — Vault of Master.
Recovery cannot be Jmd for injury to a boat by its grounding on an obstruction at a dock, on the going down of tbe tide, where tbe master, though notified that there was an obstruction, and directed to breast the boat off from the dock, for which purpose a breasting plank had been fastened to the dock, failed to do so.
8. Same — Evidence.
It cannot be inferred that a boat at a dock would have tipped over when, grounding at the going out of the tide, even if the master had breasted it off three feet from the dock, as directed, though the obstruction on which it struck extended more than three feet from the dock, other vessels of greater draft having customarily discharged there with* out injury.
Hyland & Zabriskie, for libelant.
James J. Macklin, for respondents.

Opinion:
THOMAS, District Judge.
Tbe libelant's canal boat, laden with 334 tons of soft coal, reached Newtown creek, and made fast to tbe respondents' wbarf for tbe purposes of discharge, with tbe assistance of the agents of the servants of tbe respondents. Tbe tide was at tbe time rising, furnishing sufficient watt.r for a safe berth. About 2 o'clock in tbe morning of tbe following day, upon tbe going out of the tide, tbe boat grounded upon certain obstructions extending out to and under tbe bow and stern of tbe vessel,, whereby she listed so as to permit tbe water to come over her deck; and for tbe injury received upon her filling and sinking from such 'cause this libel was filed. It appears by a preponderance of evidence that tbe master of tbe canal boat was notified that there was a projection, and be was directed to breast his boat off from tbe dock some three feet from tbe face thereof. Tbe respondents bad been painstaking to remove this obstruction, but had been unable to effect its entire removal. They bad fastened a breasting plank to tbe dock, so that tbe outer end could be placed against the vessel for tbe purpose of bolding it away from tbe dock, and such breasting plank, if used, would have held tbe vessel the distance of at least three feet from the dock. Tbe master neither used this plank nor did be breast bis boat off, but left it close alongside, and went to sleep till tbe water came into his boat, and then there was not time for securing her against the accident which happened. The weight of evidence shows that be was notified; that be did not employ tbe means' of safety furnished, or any means, to protect his vessel; and.be was culpable in that regard. But it is urged that tbe evidence shows that the obstruction extended further than three feet forward and aft of the canal boat,- and that, if be bad availed himself of tbe informatio given him, bis vessel would have taken bottom, and tbe injury woub have resulted. That is a speculation, unsupported by tbe facts Tbe evidence shows that vessels of much greater draft are custo: arily discharged at such dock without injury, and tbe inference i that tbe same good fortune would have attended this vessel hat the master done his duty in 'the particulars above suggested. The considerations against the libelant preponderate, and the libel must be dismissed, with costs.