Case: THE ST. LOUIS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: St. Louis & Mississippi Valley Transportation Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1902-02-24
Docket Number: 
Citation: 37 Ct. Cl. 550
Volume: 37
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE ST. LOUIS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
THE ST. LOUIS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
[33 C. Cls. R., 251; 184 U. S. R., 247.]
On the defendants’ Appeal.
The steamer Future City sails from St. Louis for New Orleans with a tow of nine barges, grouped about her according to the custom on the Mississippi. While following the proper course for tows she sights five United States ships of war lying below a point of land at Celeste street, New Orleans. The vessels are between the city side and the middle of the stream. She immediately backs under a full head, the only proper and feasible course, but on account of insufficiency of time and space is unable to check her headway and is carried by it and the current into collision with the Atlanta, wrecking a barge. The Galena, which is swinging by a single chain, sheers in and strikes another. The vessels lie in an irregular line extending down the river nearly a mile. The Atlanta lies in the track of tows entering the harbor, and the whole fleet lies in the way of descending vessels. The claim is referred by an act which provides that there shall be no recovery unless the injury was due to the negligence of the officers.
The court below decides:
1. The general jurisdiction of the court does not extend to maritime collisions, but Congress have frequently recognized the obligation of the Government to compensate for such injuries when caused by the negligence of its agents.
2. Where a claim for damages by collision with a Government vessel is referred, and the act provides that there shall be no recovery unless it axjpears affirmatively that the injury was due to negligence on the part of officers in command, the condition imposed must be complied with.
3. The requirement is complied with if the court is satisfied that the negligence was such as to cause the collision without contributory negligence on the part of the other vessel.
4. The admiralty rule that both vessels must bear the loss if both are in fault has long prevailed. But at common law the rule is that if both are in fault neither can recover. Under the act referring this case the damages can not be divided if mutual fault is established.
5. Where the fault oil one side is flagrant, .and on the other so trivial as to make it doubtful whether there was negligence, the latter vessel must be given the benefit of the doubt.
6. A vessel in motion is bound, as far as possible, to avoid one at anchor.
7. If a vessel was moored in an unlawful position, the burden of proof is on her to show that she was not responsible.
8. The law of the road as to rivers and the sea requires all roadways to be kept open.
9. When a vessel has committed a breach of a rule, she must show not only that her fault probably did not contribute to the damage, but that it could not have done so.
10. In time of war naval vessels may go where ordered, but in time of peace they are subject to the same rules as others.
11. Masters of towboats must not take risks that might be avoided by precaution, especially when contrary to the requirements of law or rules generally adopted.
12. It is customary to carry tows safely to port at New Orleans without dividing them, and the question whether a tow should have stopped and broken up before coming to land must depend upon the ability of the towboat to handle her barges amid the circumstances of the time.
13. The navigation of tows is governed by the difference in rivers at different places; no fixed rule exists for every part of a river.
14. It is not negligence to navigate a harbor with a large tow if it is manageable.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Shiras
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 24, 1902.