(District Oourt, E. D. NeuJ York. 1882.)
CoLLISION IN EAST RIVER-FERRY-BOATS-APPORTIONMENT AND DAMAGES.
A boat, tbe 0., on ber regular trip up the East river from Fulton street to Hunter's Point, and a ferry-boat, the W., plying between Grand street, Brooklyn, and Grand street, New York, came in collision a short distance above the ferry-slip, near the New York shore, and the O. was sunk. The O. had come up along the New York piers, to be in the eddy of the tide, which was running down, had gone out in the river a little to avoid a steam-boat then making a landing at Grand-street pier, straightened up, and exchanging signals with the out into the river. The W. had stopped when half way W. sheered across, and, heading nearly down the river to allow the steam-boat above mentioned to go inside and land, then signaled the O. to go to port, and started ahead at the same time to reach her slip. Held, that both were in fault, and the damages should be apportioned. The case of The Cayuga (1 Ben. 173; 7 BIatchf. 385) distinguished.!
In Admiralty. H. T. Wing and R. D. Benedict, for libellants. Beebe, Wilcox et Hobbs, for claimant. BENEDICT, D. J. In this case my conclusion is that the collision in question was caused by fault on both sides. The fault on the part -of the Olyphant consisted in keeping near to the New York side of the river as she turned the Hook. The fault on the part of the Warren consisted in starting up for her slip when she did, after 'seeing the position of the Olyphant. The case differs from that of The Cayuga, relied on by the libellants, in that here the ferry-boat did not hold her course, but stopped under circumstances calculated to induce the Olyphant to adopt a course to pass ahead of her, and then started up again, and blew for the Olyphant to port, when, as the result proved, it was not possible for the Olyphant, with helm hard a-port, to get outside of the ferry-boat before the boats came in contact. Fault on both sides being found, the damages must, of course, be apportioned between the two colliding vessels. An interlocutory decree to that effect will be entered, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount of the damages.
(District Court, E. D. New York.
COLLIS10N-AI'PROACHING HEAD ON-DUTY TO PORT IIELM.
Where a sail-vessel and a tug were approaching- each other head on, or nearly so, and a collision ensued, held, that the tug was in fault in noL porting ner helm.
Carpenter tf; Mosher, for libellant. Miller, Peckham cf; Dixon, for respondent.
BEN.l!JDICT, D. J. There is in this case an abundance of conflicting testimony, but the controlling facts can be discovered without much difficulty. The two vessels were rounding the lower point of New York island, sailing in opposite directions on curved lines; the Amos C. Barstow being bound into the North river, and the tug bound to pier 3, in the East river. They came in collision off pier 2, in the East river. At the time of the blow both vessels were bearing in towards the New York piers, the Barstow under a port helm, and the tug under a starboard helm. If the vessels, as they neared each other, were appwaching head on, or nearly so, the tug was of course in fault, because under such circumstances it would be her duty to port her helm instead of starboarding, as she did. That the vessels were approaching head on or nearly so, as they neared each other, is disclosed by the testimony of the pilot of the tug. From the testimony of this witness it is evident that he saw the Barstow approaching him nearly head on; that he starboarded his helm, although he saw that the Barstow was then porting; and that the collision was caused by an effort on his part to shoot in to pier 3 ahead of the Barstow, when it was his duty to allow the Barstow to pass between him and pier 3, as she had the right and. was evidently intending to do. My conclusion, therefore, is that the collision in question was causnd by the fault of the tng, and not by any fault on the part of the Barstow, and accordingly the libel is dismissed, with costs.