(Circuit Court, E. D. Loui8iana. June, 1881.)
CoLLl8rON-LIGHTS-ToRcn-REv. ST. 4234-NEGLIGENCE ON BOTH SIDES.
Libellants found to be in fault for not having red and green .lights properly screened, and for not having a torch or flash-light to show on the bow of their boat when she approached the steam-ship. The steam-ship was in fault for not avoiding the collision, havine; sig;hted the smack two miles off. Damaj:tes divided.
Action for damages for a collision which occurred in Mobile bay on the fifth of January, 1878, between the sloop-smack Charles Henry and the steam-ship Alabama, both being under way. The defence alleged that the smack did not have a proper watch on deck; did not have her lights properly set and screened.; and did not have the torch-light at her bows, as required by the laws of navigation. There was judgment in the district court for libellant for $1,083.86, andclaimarits appealed.' . Geo. H. Braughn, Chas. F. Buck, Max Dinkelspeil, and J. Ward GW'ley, Jr., for libellant. Emmet D. Craig, for claimant. , ' . PARDEE, C. J. After examining the entire record: I find'that the sloop-smack Charles Henry, at time of the collision with the Alabama, and just prior thereto, was in fault in not having her red and green lights properly guarded and screened; in not having a torch or fla!lh-Hght to show on her bow she approached the am somewhat inclined to believe that there was no steamer'; watch on deck. The failure to screen the red and green lights made it impossible to tell, on board the Alabama, what the course of the Charles Henry was, within some ten points. Her course might be north-east or north-west, and aboard the steamer she would appear to be coming head on. There can be no doubt that the shining of these lights on the Charles Henry confused the pilot of the Alabama, and rendered the collision probable. The evidence, though slightly conflicting, satisfies me that the Charles Henry never changed her course; and, whether her men were below or on watch, it was the duty of the steamer to keep out of her way; it was in the open bay, where there was plenty of room, and the sloop was seen by the quartermasters of the steamer near two miles off. 1£ the sloop had no lights at
.Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar
I4EMPHIS & ST. LOUIa PACKET CO.
H. O. YAEGER TRANSP. 00.
all, the steamer should hn,ye the collision if her pilots saw the sloop. The collision was the result of negligence on both crafts; the damages must be divided. The claimant's proctor pretends that the commissioner's report is all wrong, and that he did not have an opportunity to produce witnesses as to damages. It would seem that $150 a. month for nonuse of a smack not worth over $1,000, is pretty high; such Dr smack would soon pay for itself, laying up. Whereupon the court entered a decree reversing the decrees and orders in the district court, holding that the collision was the fault of both vessels; that the damages be divided; and made a reference to Dr COmIlllt;S10neI to ex.amine and report actual damage Buffered.
ST. LOUIS PACKET
Co. v. THE H. C. Co.-
Court, E. D. Missouri. February 10, 1882.)
COLLIsrON-Drv'ISION OF DAUAGES.
Where, in case of a collision between two vessels, there is mutual fa\llt, the between the owners. . damages should be flqunlly
Sum-MEAsuRE OF DAMAGE8-REPAIR8-DETENTION.
The damages to be dividt\d in such cases are those necessarily resulting from the collision. If repairs are necessitated their actual cost should be taken into account. If the injured vessel is bound on a voyage and is detained by reason of the collision, the loss from detention also constitutes part of the damages.
Noble Orrick, for libellants. Henderson 0: Shields, for respondent.
MCCRARY, C. J. This is a case of collision. The court has heretofore affirmed the finding below that there was mutual fault, and that the damages should, therefore, be equally divided between the owners of the two colliding vessels. At the request of counsel a reargument has been had upon the question, whether in such a case demurrage, or charges for loss of the use of the injured vessel while undergoing repairs, should be allowed as part of the damages to be divided.
4Reported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis !Jar.