Court Opinion

ID: 8632347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:39:39.718106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:48.870770
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Circuit Justice.
It is not to be denied, that the brig was on the privileged course, and that it was the duty of the barque to give way, and pass her in safety. This point is not contested. The ground of de-fence set up, and, earnestly and ably discussed, is,.that, in consequence of the character of the weather, it was impossible for the barque to discover the lights of the brig, after the greatest diligence, and with a competent lookout, in time to make the proper movement to avoid her, and that the collision was the result of inevitable accident. There is much evidence, in the record, tending strongly to support this view, and, at best, the-opposing view, cannot be said to be free from doubts and difficulties; and, if the question were an original one before nie, resting upon the proofs as exhibited in the record, I' might hesitate to reach the conclusion of the learned judge below. The darkness of the night, and the storm of wind and Tain, as detailed by witnesses, must necessarily have greatly tended to embarrass the discovery of the lights of the approaching vessel. In such a state of the weather, and with such difficulties of navigation, it should not be lightly presumed that the hands on board of a vessel thus exposed to dangers involving life and property, would be remiss in their duty, and strong proof should be required to the contrary, in order to charge fault. In such cases, however, the question must mainly be one of fact, and, as several' of the material witnesses were examined orally before the learned judge, his opportunity for determining the degree of credit to which their testimony is entitled, was, of course, much better than mine is. He has arrived at the conclusion that the barque could have discovered the lights of the other vessel, in the existing state of the weather, at least a quarter of a mile off, which would have afforded full time to execute the proper movement to avoid her. The weight of the proofs, as to the distance that the lights of a vessel might have been discovered at the time, is, perhaps, with this conclusion; and, in the relative position of the vessels, the starboarding of -the barque a little earlier than it was done, would have enabled her to pass the other vessel clear. .As it was, the bow only was struck.
What has influenced my mind in this case, more, perhaps, than any thing else, is the unsatisfactory account given of the lookout on the barque. Covered, as he was, with the main topsail, to protect himself from the storm, it is apparent that he was not in a condition, or free, to discharge the whole duty of a lookout. He was not, as he should have been, .the first to discover the lights of the approaching vessel. Upon the whole, I think that the decree should be affirmed.