Court Opinion

ID: 8636828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:46:37.280393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:57.419134
License: Public Domain

NELSON. Circuit Justice.
The case turns mainly on a question of fact, and that is, whether or not the schooner, after having been seen by the steamer, changed her course, by porting her helm and bearing to the east, thereby crossing the course or track of the steamer.
It is insisted by the master and hands on board of the steamer, that, on discovering the light of the schooner, which was then some three miles distant, it bore two points on their starboard bow, and that with a view to give her a free course, the helm of the steamer was starboarded, inclining her course to the east: but, that the schooner, instead of pursuing her course, ported her helm, and brought her across the track of the steamer, and thus occasioned the collision. It is admitted by the hands on board of the schooner, that, when they discovered the lights of the steamer, she appeared on a line nearly ahead of them; and that, intending to go up the bay on the east side, and to anchor at Red Hook Flats, they ported her helm and bore to the east. But they insist that this must have taken place before the schooner could have been seen by the hands on board of the steamer, and, hence, would not have influenced the course of the steamer. This I regard as the weak point in the case of the libellants. I am not satisfied, upon the proofs, that their position is well founded. On the contrary, I am inclined to think the weight of the evidence is, that the change of course took place after the schooner was discovered by the steamer. The error committed by the schooner was in changing her course after she had discovered the steamer. She had no right to assume she had not been seen by the steamer. The rule, that a steamer must take care and avoid a sailing vessel, if she keeps her course, is equally imperative. that the latter must not change her course. If she does she is in fault, and cannot invoke the rule against the steamer.
Besides, in this case, the night was dark, the steamer was moving dowm the bay with moderate speed, and the hands on board appear to have been active and attentive to avoid a collision, after discovering the schooner, and to have discovered her as soon as was practicable by the most vigilant lookouts.
Even if the schooner had not been chargeable with fault, I think it difficult to impute fault to the steamer. No doubt, if the collision had occurred in open day, or even on a clear and bright night, when the steamer could have seen the change made by the sailing vessel early enough to avoid her, it would-have been her duty to take all proper measures for the purpose. But a change of course on a night dark and cloudy cannot be so readily discovered or so fully comprehended, and a less stringent rule must be applied.
I agree with the court below, that, upon the proofs in the case, the steamer was not in fault, and must affirm the decree.