Court Opinion

ID: 8121943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 14:58:41.135081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:02.855987
License: Public Domain

Butleb, D. J.
The liability of the respondent is plain. The loss resulted directly from his negligence. If lie did not *320know the rotten condition of the hawser, with which he attempted to move the Little, at the outset, (and the complainant’s witnesses swear he did,) he became aware of it, according to the testimony produced by himself, immediately after. The result would be the same, however, if he did not know. Undertaking to move the vessel for his own convenience, against her protest, the responsibility for ajl that was done rested on him. It was his duty to ascertain whether the hawser was sufficient to control her. The failure to do this was the direct cause of the injury which followed. It is of no consequence that those on board the Little, might possibly have averted the catastrophe by dropping her anchor. As respects the libellant, the respondent cannot complain that somebody did not interfere to save him from the consequences of his folly. He took the Little, in charge on his own account, against'her will, and as respects the libellant, was responsible for her management. If unfit to go out because of the condition of her anchors, or on any other account, he should not have taken her. The authorities cited by his counsel relate to questions between the owners of tugs and their tows, and have no application to the case in hand. It is doubtful at least whether the ordinary relation of tug and tow existed between the respondent and the Little; but even if it did, and both vessels might be regarded as in fault, the right of the libellant to recover from the respondent would not be affected thereby.
■A decree must be entered for the libellant accordingly.