Court Opinion

ID: 88654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:01:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.878733
License: Public Domain

82 U.S. 676 (1872)
15 Wall. 676
THE LUCILLE.
Supreme Court of United States.

*678 Mr. W.S. Waters, for the appellants, owners of the steamer.
Messrs. W.S. Bryan and T.A. Seth, contra.
*679 Mr. Justice HUNT now, April 28th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court.
The principles of law applicable to this case are well settled. They are not disputed by either party. In the case of The Carroll[*] it is thus laid down: "Nautical rules require that where a steamship and sailing vessel are approaching each other from opposite directions, or on intersecting lines, the steamship, from the moment the sailing vessel is seen, shall watch with the highest diligence her course and movements, so as to be able to adopt such timely means of precaution as will necessarily prevent the two boats from coming in contact. Fault on the part of the sailing vessel at the moment preceding a collision does not absolve a steamer which has suffered herself and a sailing vessel to get in such dangerous proximity as to cause inevitable alarm and confusion, and collision as a consequence. The steamer, as having committed a far greater fault in allowing such proximity to be brought about, is chargeable with all the damages resulting from a collision."
The rule laid down in the case of The Fannie,[] is still more applicable to the case before us. It was held that a schooner meeting a steamer approaching her on a parallel line, with the difference of half a point in the course of the two, ought to have kept on her course; that a steamer approaching *680 a sailing vessel is bound to keep out of her way, and to allow her a free and unobstructed passage. Whatever is necessary for this it is her duty to do, and to avoid whatever obstructs or endangers the sailing vessel in her course. If, therefore, the sailing vessel does not change her course so as to embarrass the steamer, and render it difficult for her to avoid a collision, the steamer alone is answerable for the damage of a collision, if there is one.
The schooner was sailing up the bay, on a course of north-by-west, with a very light breeze from the southeast. The steamer was sailing down the bay, with a course south-by-east-half-east, at about seven or eight miles an hour. When the steamer's men first saw the schooner the vessels were about two miles apart. The vessels, it will be observed, were on courses nearly parallel. The half-point of difference tended to a convergence.
Upon this state of facts the duty of the sailing vessel was to continue upon her course, leaving it to the steamer to avoid the collision. It was the plain duty of the steamer to accept this responsibility, and to assume that such would be the action of the schooner. The schooner was considerably to the eastward of the steamer, and it would seem that by simply bearing a half-point to the west, by which the convergence would be destroyed and perfectly parallel lines would result, that the steamer could have accomplished the safety of the passage. If there was any reason why this could not be done, which does not appear, a bearing to the east, by which the convergence would have been increased, would have carried the steamer in safety across the bows of the schooner. Neither course was adopted, but pursuing the middle course, so often the path of safety, but in this case most injudicious, of remaining on the course of south-by-east-half-east, the vessels came together.
The steamer seeks to avoid this difficulty by the allegation that the schooner changed her course, putting up her helm, that is, putting it to starboard, and thus throwing the schooner across the bows of the steamer. This view is sought to be sustained by the evidence that the captain *681 stated that he had put up his helm, and that the schooner was struck on her starboard bow by the port bow of the steamer. It is argued that this situation could have been produced in no other way.
We cannot believe that the schooner, bound northerly to Baltimore, with a breeze from the southeast, would have been sailing on a southwesterly course. This was quite out of her direction, and cannot be admitted, and yet it is the effect of the theory we are considering. Again, if such had been the course of the schooner it would have thrown her sails to the starboard, whereas it is proved that her sails were on the port side, and so remained until the actual collision, when they shifted to the starboard, doing some injury to the steamer. If the schooner put up her helm, it was in the moment of anxiety, and to avoid the danger of collision, which was then imminent. It is quite probable that seeing the steamer coming upon her, she put up her helm and sheered to the west, as the best means of escape. The steamer, at about the same moment, must have put her helm aport, and thus the port bow of the steamer and the starboard bow of the schooner were brought together. This is the natural explanation of the position, and is consistent with the evidence on the subject.
We are satisfied that no change was made in the course of the steamer until she was almost upon the schooner, as some of the witnesses express it, when she was within two minutes of the collision, as others say, when within thirty yards of the schooner, and that the collision was the result of her negligence.
There is no reason to suppose that the damages are excessive. The vessel had been purchased recently, and had been repaired after the purchase. The value of the vessel and of the cargo were sufficiently established, and the decree was within the amount proven.
The decree should be AFFIRMED WITH INTEREST from its date, March 12th, 1869, at the rate of interest allowed by the laws of Maryland.
NOTES
[*]  8 Wallace, 302.
[]  11 Id. 238.