Court Opinion

ID: 8123983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 15:03:46.923113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:08.483677
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
There can be no doubt that the archway across which the line was stretched was the principal channel for navigation in the Harlem river, under High bridge. The landing at Riley’s float has been in use for many years. The course from that landing, through the middle archway, upon a flood tide, would be attended by such obvious inconvenience and dangers as cannot rightfully be imposed upon persons entitled to navigate the river in the ordinary course of navigation. The line stretched across the western archway was, therefore, in my judgment, plainly an unreasonable obstruction to tho navigation of the river, which could only be lawfully put there very temporarily, or at seasons when the channel was not in use for ordinary navigation. While such lines or warps may doubtless be used temporarily for mooring and handling vessels in rivers or harbors, they cannot he lawfully continued so as to form a permanent 'V struction to navigation. Those who make use of them must be prepared to give seasonable notice of them to approaching vessels to avoid danger, and make seasonable provision for their passage.
In Potter v. Pettis, 2 R. I. 487, the court say:
“The plaintiffs had a right to extend their warp across the entire channel of the river, if there were no vessels passing, but on the approach of another vessel it was their duty to take notice of such approach, and to lower their warp so as to give ample space in the ordinary traveled part of the channel for her to pass, and to give timely notice of the space so left.”
In McCord v. The Tiber, 6 Biss. 410, the court say:
“The respondent had no right to obstruct the channel with a line across it in that manner. * * * If it was for the safety of the boat to make a line fast to the shore, or to use a line attached to the shore as a necessary assistance in getting off the bar, she should have taken care to get it out of the way of all passing vessels, either by dropping it, so that they could pass over it safely, or by casting off one end. The obstruction not being removed so as to let this raft pass over or under it in safety, was manifestly illegal.”
See 1 Pars. Adm. 547; The Vancouver, 2 Sawy. 381.
In this case no attempt was made to give seasonable notice to the Swan of the existence of this line across the archway before she left Riley’s float, or afterwards, until she was close upon it. Such a *458line was not easily distinguishable, and the pilot of the Swan is not, so far as I can see, chargeable with any negligence in not perceiving it in time to avoidit. Those on the Simon could not loosen the line, though requested to do so. The Swan could not safely remain any length of time in contact with the line, and the only alternative was to cut it, as was done, which, under such circumstances, as I must hold, the captain had a legal right to do. There was no actual necessity for the use of this line by the Simon at all. The boat might have been breasted off by the use of planks, and that, as the laborer Dunn stated, has been latterly the more usual method. The line had been thus used by the Simon for 24 hours, forming a plainly illegal obstruction of the channel.
While, therefore, upon the ground above stated, I should be constrained to hold that any loss occasioned by the line’s being cut was through the libelant’s own fault, and not through any legal fault in the Swan, upon the other facts of the case, .also, the weight of evidence seems to show' that the damage to the boat was not the proximate result of cutting the line. It was high water that day at Governor’s Island at about 10 minutes before 12, and it could not have been high water at High bridge until between 2 and 3. The libel states that the line was cut at about 11 o’clock, and the libelant so testified. ' The answer does not state the hour, but says that the flood tide was then about three-quarters full, which would place the time between 11 and 12. These statements in the pleadings, with other direct evidence in accord with them, should be held controlling, notwithstanding some contrary evidence which was given on the part of the libelant. While the tide, therefore,was rising rapidly, it was impossible that the injuries complained of could have arisen immediately after the line was cut. The discharge of coal continued until 3 o’clock, and until nearly that time the tide was ¿rising; after that it fell, and the settling of the boat upon the spiles with the falling tide must have taken place at or after that time. During the interval there was abundant time for the libelant to take all necessary means to shove his boat off and out of the way of the "sunken spiles. The libelant himself says the effort to get'the boat off was soon after the line was cut,—from five to fifteen minutes afterwards. But the libel is so full of gross errors in its statement of facts as to detract much from the credit to be given to the libelant’s case, and I cannot accept as true the statement of some of the libelant’s witnesses, that when the line was cut the boat immediately got upon the spiles and could not be removed.
, On both grounds, therefore, the libel should be dismissed, with ■costs.