Court Opinion

ID: 6642379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:46:48.879165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:17.670190
License: Public Domain

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
It is clear, on the testimony, that each of the vessels had the proper lights set and burning, from the time the lights. of each were discerned on board of the other, until the time of the collision, and that there was nothing but negligence or willful inattention that could prevent either of the vessels from-reading correctly the language spoken by the lights of the other. The schooner knew, or was bound to know, that the other vessel was a steamer. The steamer knew, or was bound to know, that the other vessel was á sailing vessel. On this state of facts, the rules of navigation are clearly prescribed by statute. Article 15 of the act of April 29, 1864, (13 Stat. 60,) provides as follows: “If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the other a steamship, are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing ship.” Article 18 provides, that where, by article 15, the steamship is to keep out of the way, the sailing ship shall keep her course. The libel avers, that the course of the schooner was north by east when she made the lights of the steamer, the wind being south by east; that the schooner made the lights of the steamer directly ahead; that, for some time after the discovery by the schooner of the lights, and until the vessels had approached one another, it was uncertain whether the vessel approaching the schooner was a sailing vessel or a steamer; and that, when the lights were discovered ahead, by the schooner, that is, when the vessels were several miles apart, and while those on the schooner were uncertain as to whether the vessel approaching from directly ahead was a sailing vessel or a steamer, the schooner changed her course, by porting her helm, from north by east to northeast by north, a change of two points, and kept steadily on the latter course until after she discovered that the approaching vessel was a steamer and was on a course that would run down the schooner, when the schooner’s helm was put hard to port till she headed east by north, in which position she was struck on her port side. The only person now living who was on the deck of the schooner at the time, and saw anything of the collision, was McLean, who had the wheel, the mate being on the lookout. McLean has been examined as a witness for the libellant. He says, that he was standing on the starboard side of the wheel when he first saw the approaching lights; that they were on the starboard bow, right ahead, his attention having been called to them by the mate; that the lights bore north by east from him; that, about a minute after seeing the lights, he, on an order from the mate, ported his wheel, and brought the schooner up to the northeast point; that, when that change had been made, it caused the lights to bear a point and a half or two points on the port bow of the schooner; that he ran on the northeast course a minute or a minute and a-half and then changed to a course northeast by north; that, just at the moment of being struck, he put his wheel hard to port; and that it was from twenty-five to thirty minutes from the time he first saw the lights until the time of the collision. The testimony of McLean is explicit that, for full twenty minutes, he kept the northeast by north course. Now, by law, it was *402clearly the duty of the schooner to keep her course, as against the approaching steamer, and it was the duty of the steamer to keep out of the way of the schooner. It was, therefore, bad navigation in the schooner to port her helm, when she saw the lights right ahead, and change her course first to northeast and then to northeast by north, the approaching lights being those of a steamer. Especially was it wrong in the schooner to make this change of course when, as appears from the libel, she was uncertain whether the lights were those of a steamer or of a sailing vessel. I am not satisfied, however, that this fault in the navigation of the schooner makes her chargeable with the collision.
The steamer made the schooner one and a half to two points on her starboard bow, and, acting on the indications that the approaching vessel was a sailing vessel, did not port her helm, but starboarded it, in order to keep out of the way of the schooner. The change by the steamer was from a course south half west to south-southeast, a change of two and a half points towards the east. The. change made in the course of the schooner on sighting the steamer, was a change of from two to three points towards the east. The speed of each vessel was about the same — say six to eight knots an hour, that of the schooner being, perhaps, a little the greater. Now, on this state of facts, each vessel making the other nearly ahead, but a little on the starboard bow, one heading south half west and the other north by east, and each then changing to and running on a course about two and a half points further to the eastward, we should expect it to follow that, from the former vessel, the lights of the other vessel would, after the last change, take a bearing which would be preserved substantially unaltered during the running of the vessels on their several new courses. This result did follow. The testimony of Newbegin, the mate of the steamer, taken on the part of •the claimants, shows that, while the steamer was running on her south-southeast course, which course she continued for ten or twelve minutes, the schooner continued ah the time to bear about two and a half points on his ■starboard bow; that he then changed to a south course, and ran on that for fifteen minutes, and that the schooner still continued to bear not more than from two and a half to two and three-quarters points on his starboard bow; that the united speed of the two vessels was from sixteen to eighteen knots an hour; and that he first made the schooner’s lights when she was about seven miles off. In twenty-five minutes, the vessels, at a united speed of sixteen knots an horn-, would approach six miles and two-thirds of a mile nearer to each other. This approach of the schooner, without the bearing of her lights being substantially altered, while the course of the steamer was first south-southeast for ten minutes, ■ and then south for fifteen minutes, ought to have been a clear indication to the steamer that the schooner was proceeding in such a direction as to involve a risk of collision. Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the steamer to keep out of the way of the schooner. The schooner, after she took a northeast by north course, kept it up to the very jaws of the instant peril. Her change to a northeast by north course from a course north by east did not contribute to the collision. It was wrong in the steamer to persist in starboard-ing her helm, and running on a course which, from the bearing of the schooner’s lights, and the freshness of the wind, it ought to have been evident, would soon bring the two vessels into peril of collision. The steamer ought to have ported her helm before she did. If she had done so, she would have cleared the schooner, as the movement which the schooner made in the heat of danger in putting her helm hard to port; favored the chance that the steamer would, by porting, clear the schooner. Such movement of the schooner did not, on the evidence,' cause the collision, nor was it faulty. The steamer ought to have kept out of the way. The schooner kept her course, and there was no special circumstance making it necessary for the steamer to take and keep the course she did. Moreover, the steamer did not soon enough slacken her speed, or soon enough stop and reverse. If she had done so at an earlier moment, she would have gone under the stem of the schooner, and so she would if she had ported at an earlier moment. There must be a decree holding the steamer liable for the collision, and for the damages caused by it, with a reference to ascertain and report the damages.