Court Opinion

ID: 8123896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 15:03:40.287344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:08.268832
License: Public Domain

Wallace, J.
The proofs in this case fully sustain the conclusion!, of tho court below, as expressed in the opinion of the district judge, except as to his finding that there was no fault or negligence on the part of those in charge of the Pegasus in not seeing the tug. and barge until too late to avoid a collision. The learned district judge states in his opnion that he cannot find why the two vertical white lights on the flag-staff of the tug and barge were not visible to the steamer, although they were burning brightly. The reason why the the red and green lights on the tug were not seen, is obviously, as he finds, because they were hidden by the barge from the time the tug swung under her starboard wheel for the East river, thus bringing the barge between her and the Pegasus. The two vertical white lights were suspended on the flag-staff of the tug, one about a foot above the other, and the lower light was 21 feet above the water. It is possible that these lights may have been somewhat obscured from the Pegasus by the pilot-house of the barge at times while the vessels were approaching each other, but in the constanstly shifting positions of the vessels they could not have been hidden continually; and those in charge of the Pegasus do not rely upon any such theory, but insist that there were no lights on the tug, and that none were to be seen when the vessels collided. These lights ought to have been *48seen during the time the Pegasus was on her north-east course, which covered three quarters of a mile; and in the absence of any fact to explain why they were not seen, there can be no other rational conclusion except that it was owing to some relaxation of vigilance on the part of the Pegasus. Precisely where this negligence should be located is not important; it suffices that there was failure to see them when they were plainly visible to those in charge of the steamer, if they had used due diligence.
Agreeing with the district judge that the tug was in fault, and that the conduct of her captain was grossly negligent in keeping under his starboard wheel when the green light of the Pegasus had been closed upon him for so long a distance, and in attempting to keep his course when his signals had not been answered, and when he had reason to know that the Pegasus was making for her usual landing, nevertheless the collision was not attributable solely to the tug. As the district judge states in his opinion: “It is manifest that if the Pegasus had seen or ought to have seen the lights of the tug and barge, her management was negligent, and she was in fault.” In such a ease the damages must be apportioned between the offending vessels. Even gross fault committed by one of two vessels approaching each other from opposite directions does not excuse the other from observing every proper precaution to prevent a collision; and when, if such precaution had been observed the collision would have been avoided, the loss should be divided. The Maria Martin, 12 Wall. 31.
A decree is accordingly ordered dividing the loss, with a reference to a master to ascertain the amount. No costs are allowed to either party as against the other in the court below, but costs of the appeal are awarded to the libelant.