Court Opinion

ID: 88528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:01:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.490779
License: Public Domain

81 U.S. 189 (1871)
14 Wall. 189
THE JAVA.
Supreme Court of United States.

*192 Mr. Richard Henry Dana, for the libellants, and in support of the ruling below.
Mr. W.G. Russell, contra.
*195 *198 Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
If the expressions of the learned judge who delivered the opinion of the Circuit Court, in answer to the argument that the Java pursued an unusual course in attempting to go to her dock by the passage to the right of the school-ship, and which have been commented on at the bar, mean that she was bound to use more than ordinary precaution by reason of taking an unusual route, they are correct; but if they mean that she was liable at all events, whatever precautions she took, we cannot concur in the position. A small vessel might have been concealed by the school-ship, and might have come out upon the Java unawares, whichever side of the school-ship she had gone. It was shown by the evidence that the Cunard steamers had before passed in by the same route which the Java took, and it seems on this occasion to have been the preferable one, inasmuch as the Java, from her great length, could not, by herself, have turned into her dock had she taken the other route and gone around the vessels lying at anchor. She had a perfect right to go by the passage which she took, as much so as the James McCloskey had to come out by that passage; and in doing so, she was not liable at all events; she was only bound to use that degree of care and precaution which the particular circumstances of the case demanded. There is not the slightest evidence that in this regard anything was wanting, or that there was any lack of skill or vigilance on the part of the pilot and crew of the Java.
On the other hand, the James McCloskey was not without fault. She had been towed down from one of the East Boston wharves to the school-ship, and there discharged her tug, and floated along slowly with the tide, without having her sails up (her crew being engaged in hoisting sail), without being under control, and entirely concealed from the view of the Java by the intervention of the school-ship. She came out from behind the latter without any notice or warning. If either ship is to blame, we think the blame rests with her, rather than with the Java.
It is contended that the Java ought to have anticipated *199 the possibility of a small vessel lying behind the school-ship. The answer is, that she took every reasonable precaution which the circumstances required. She proceeded very slowly, only two knots an hour; she had lookouts posted in every proper place; as soon as the schooner was seen, she took every means in her power to stop and back and avoid the collision. How could she anticipate the possibility of a vessel lying behind the school-ship, without sails hoisted, incapable of being seen in a bright, clear day, drifting along helplessly with the tide, ready to drop under the Java at her approach? Is it not applying too severe a rule to the Java, to require her to anticipate all this, and to require the schooner to anticipate nothing?
It seems to us that if this was not an inevitable accident, so far as the Java was concerned, it would be very difficult to imagine a case of inevitable accident not caused by external force, as of winds and waves.
The decree of the Circuit Court is REVERSED, with directions to
DISMISS THE LIBEL.