AWINAFlDRR1!"CO. ",.THEIMPERIAL AND THE
, .': .! ... . , .. - ',' ,
, , A .tug, employed llya ship to Jl1.ove her fromheranohorage in the Wallamet river to a do'ck in East Portland, 'under the direction and control of the p.ilot ,in charge of ·the ,ship, is not liable for, injury caused by ii. collision of such vessel wJth anQ,ther, In such case the tug and tow are but one vessel, and , ' that oIle is the tow.
TOWAGE....,..COLLISION-.i...LIAilILITY OF 'I1UG. "
A wire cable. used as a. guide across the Wallamet river by the ferry-boat of the .Albina Ferry Company, when beld up within 111' fe.et of the surface of the water, at 18 feet from the end of the boat all,d 150 feet from the shore. in water over, SO feet in depth, in the vicinity of the approach of eea-going vessels, to the Irving; dock 'in -East Portland. is a material 'obstruction to naviga" "tion, all,d unlaw;ful,unleS8 sanctioned by the legislature. (l3yllabU8 by the. C/ourt.) . "
, In Admiralty. , P. L. Willis, for libelant. Cyrus Dolph, for the S. G. Reed. Edward N. Deady, for the Iir),perial.
DEADY, J. This suit is brought by the libelant, the Albina Ferry COmpany, to recover damages in the sum of $500, alleged to have been, caused bya collision of the ship Imperial1 while' being towed by the steam-boat S. G: Reed, with the ferry-boat Veto No.2. The facts appear to be as follbws: .Between1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon of September 14, 1888,Albert Betts, a Wallamet river pilot, was 'employed to dock the Imperial at the Irving dock, in East Portland, and for that purpose obtained from the claimant, the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company, theuse,ofthe steam-boat S. G. Reed and crew. The Imperial was lying at anchor in the river some distance below Montgomery dock, in Albina, and to the west side of the river. Her length is 198 feet, and her beam 38 feet. She had just arrived from Wilmington,Cal., in ballast, and was 15 feet out of water and 13 feet in. At the time of the collision the Veto No.2 was being run by the libelant,acorporation formed under -the laws of Oregon, under a license, as a ferry-boat between her slip or landing on the east side ofthe Wallamet, in Albina,; Just!louth of river lot J9, and her landing on the west side of the same, on lots 26 and 27, in> the Couch addition to Portland; the between such IntJ dings being about 1,200 feet. North width of of the ferry-slip the river frontds.occupiedfor about 1,000 feet by the Allen & Lewis warehouse and the Montgomery dock. About 100 feet is about 350 south of the ferry-slip is Shaver's wharf, and Irving's feet south of the same. In the space between the ferry-slip and Shaver's wharf is a small floating wood wharf or pontoon, with a waiting-house on it. The ferry-boat is run on a steel wire cable three Rnd a half inches in circumference, and fastened to the shore at either end. The cable is supported by and pas8es over a sheave or block held in a hanger 18 inches above the wa-
ALBINA FERRY CO. tI. THE IMPERIAL,
ter, which is fastened to the under side of the guard on the upper side, and at each end of the boat, about 18 feet from the end of the The Veto, when in its slip on the east side, extendsahout 60 feet into the water beyond the dock line, and immediately off the outer end thereof the water is from 25 to 30 feet deep, and deepens to the middle of the river. At the tifae of the collision,. the cable off the end of the boat was within 10 feet and 5 inches of the surface of the water, and at 18 feet beyond,. it was within 11! feet. The Reed made fast to the Imperial on her starboard side, and the two vessels, propelled by the wheel,of the former, and navigated as one, under the charge of Pilot Betts, started up stream, heading eastward for, the lower eudof Montgomery dock. The wind was blowing from the east,' according to the report of the signal-office, at the rate of six miles, an hour; arid, to avoid being blown over to the west side, the pilot pur., posed to keep the vessel under the lee of the docks on the east side. When the vessel was within, 100 feet of the dock line, at the lower end of the Montgomery dock, she was straightened up the river, and the: engine on the Reed stopped to lessen the headway'; but the vessel commencing to drift to the west, at about 300 feet from the ferry-slip tho: engine was "started up" again, and at about 100 feet therefrom it was stopped again, and the vessel moved along in the direction of Irving's dock at not exceeding two miles an hour. At this time the ferry-boat was at her east landing, under the charge, of a collector and engineel', who had seen the Imperial coming up the river, some 600 or 700 feet away, and thought, as, they saY, thll>t she; was going to stop below them, because she was so close 'in to the docks.:, There were some vehicles and passengers on the boat, apparently bound; west. The collector and engineer were on shore examining the condi-i tion of the cable and the pontoon on which the boat made its landing., As the Imperial came in front of the slip the engineer saw her, ,and baing, as hesaya, alarmed at her proximity to the ferry-boat, he jumpl'ld on board, ran into the engine-room, and commenced to work her ashore into the slip, which the collector says he did. And here arises the disputed question in the case. It is alleged by the libelant that the Imperial ran on and against the apron of the ferryboat and pushed it around and up stream, until the cable broke, when it gave way in the direction of the shore, and allowed the ship to pass on to the dock. On the other hand, the claimants insist that the. Im-. perial did not strike the at all, and was not. nearer to her 20 feet, but that in. passing along at that distance or more in front of her, the keelcifthe Imperial caught the cable of the ferry-boat, and pulled the latter around until the cable parted or pulled loose from its fastenings on the bank. can say that Neither the collector not the engineer of the the Imperiial touched because they ,were not in ,a condition to see ;whethel' she did or not. The collector was on shore, and I suppose the house on obstructed his view. However,withoutexpl&-
nation, he says he could not see whether the ship touched the boat or not. The engineer was in the engine-room and could not see, but he says he felt ajar, which he thought was caused by a collision of the vessels. One witness called by the libelant, Marshal Peterson, who was engaged in shingling a small wharf-house to the south and in the immediate vicinity of the ferry-boat, says the ship struck the apron of the ferryboat, and pushed it around. John Lund, who was called by the libelant, and was also shingling on the same house, says the ship was 15 or 20 feet from the boat. She struck the cable, and turned the boat around. Arthur Bell, who was on Shaver's wharf at the time, says the ship did not touch the ferry.boat, and that she was between 20 and 30 feet away from her.' Albert Betts, the pilot in charge of the Imperial, says the ship was 20 or 30 feet away from the ferry-boat; and that, as the latter came abreast of the ship's forerigging, he saw the ferry-boat commence to move away, when he knew that the ship's keel had caught the cable. He immediately gave orders to back the engine, but before the ship could be stopped something parted or gave away, the boat righted, and the ship passed on. . On this testimony it must be found that the ship did not collide with the boat, and that she passed outside of her at least 20 feet. There is scarcely any room for doubt on the suhject. Peterson appears to have been very much alarmed for his own safety, and must be mistaken. Several independent circumstances in the case also point to the same conclusion. For instance, the apron of the boat does not appear to have sustained any appreciable injury. One of the witnesses for the libelant says it was twisted some. The hanger at the outer end of the boat, through which the cable passed, was torn out of the guard. Now, if the apron had been caught between the' Imperial on the lower side and the cable on the upper, it would have been seriously injured, if not destroyed. A,nd, if the Imperial had so come in contact with the apron and thereby pushed the boat against the cable, it is not possible that the hanger by 'Which the latter was supported could have been pulled out. But if the Imperial caught the cable on its keel, 20 feet distant from the boat, and thereby dragged the latter around, and up stream, it is easily seen that the hanger might have been pulled out or given away, as it did. The actual damage sustained .by the occurrence is not very great. The injury to the boat is estimated by the manager of the libelant at &100, to the pontoon $25, and to the cable $200. A carpenter who examined the boat in December says that the repairs to it, then "in sight," 'Would not cost to exceed $40. The cable was parted near the end, and by fastening it lower down on the bank, as has been done, it is as serviceable as ever. Still its value is undoubtedly diminished somewhat. But without more explicit testimony on the subject the court would not be warranted in finding that its value was diminished $200 or aoy considerable portion of such sum. The pontoon was not actually injured, but the cable was fastened to it, and thereby it was pulled out of place; and in getting it back it had to be more or less 'taken to pieces.
ALBtNA FERRY CO. 11; TaE IMPERIAL.
On this state of facts counsel for the6wners of the Reed insist that tbe steam-boat is not liable for any damages which the libelants may have sustained. The Reed was employed by the pilot of the Imperial fo1' the purpose of towing that vessel, and'at the time of the collision was in the control of and in the service of the ship. There is no evidence of any fault, negligence, or misconduct on the part of the steam-boat or anyone employed on her. . " . Under these, circumstances the steam-boat and ship constituted btlt one vessel, and that vessel was the ship. The tug. was the mere servant of the tow, and 'both were under the control and direction of the pilot in charge of the latter. Admitting for a moment that a wrong has been committed,the owners of the Imperial, through their agent, the pilot in charge, are .the wrong-doers, and their vessel is alone liable therefor. The owner oUhe Reed did not participate in the supposed wrong, neither by itself nor its servants. As well say that the wrong of a person .who recklessly rides another down in a public thoroughfare is the wrongdf the liveryman from whom he hired the horse. The Oreole, 2 Wall. Jr. 512; The Sampson, 3 Wall. Jr. 14; Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 124; The Maria Martin, 12 Wall. 44; Cohen, Adm. 225. . . It. is not denied that there may be and have been cases in which both tug and :tow are liable for the damage sustained by a collision. But in such case both participate in the management of the vessel, and the negligence or misconduct causing the same. Oivilita, and The 103 U. 8 .. 699, is such a case. The libAl is dismissed as to the 8. G. Reed. The liability of the Imperial depends on the right of the libelant to maintain this cable in the river where and as it was, when caught on the keel of the vessel. In my judgment the cable was not slack enough,-was held too near ,the surface of the water. At 18 feet from the end of the boat, in water over 30 feet: deep, and in the line of the approach to public docks, it was held within 111 feet of the surface, when it ought to have been at least 20 feet below the same. Eighteen feet from the end of the boat is 36 feet from the point where the cable passes through the hanger, and commences to descend into the water. It ought to descend at an angle of hot less than 45 degrees, so that in 30 feet or less of water' 'it would be on the ground in 36 feet from the hanger, or 18 feet from the boat, in a liodzontalline. In such case it would be safe for any vessel drawing not more than 20 feet of water to pass within 20 feet of the ferry-boat, at least when lying in or at her slip, without any l:ipecial strain on her cable. It may be admitted that it is not so convenient to run a boat on a slack line as a taut one. But it must be bor'ne in mind that there is no authority for obstructing the navigation of the river with this cable, and therefore it must be managed, even to the inconvenience of the ferryowners, so as not to constitute a material obstruction to navigation. This question has been before this court before. In The Vancouver, 2
vol. 38., '
Sawy. 381, it was oonsidered llJld:;distnissed,with the suggestion that . whether a feny-cable is an obstruction: or not mpj;lt depend on the circum· stances of the particular case. ... In Ladq v. FQ8ter, 31 Fed. Rep; 827., the iJourt "Ids not¢laimed that there, isan,YlegislativeautMrity for stretching this cable across river, and using it !lS' is _ done by. tl,1e defendant, the Albina Ferry Compll,J1,Y. A cable lying on the bottom of the,riY6ris not an o1;Jstruction to navigation, While, if stretched across at or near tb'Ei surface of the it would be. Betweeuthese extremes it may depend on When a ferry-bOat,' running on a cable stretched loosely across the river, in comparatively still ,water only takes the off the ground a few feet in the front .and rear of it,as it passes along, nQ 'ill.aterial obstlluctiontQnavigation may result... r; ., In Atlee v.l'acket Co., 21 Wall; .395, the-Bu-preme ,court held that a pier builtin one side ofa·challlleli of the Mississippi river, as part ofa boom for holding saw-logs adjaoenHo amiB, without legislative author,ity, was unlawful, and the person who erected andmainfained it held liable.indamagesfor a collision between it and a-barge descending the river,altboughtherewasamplespacefor passage Of the vessel fur.ther out in the stream.; But, although the cable at thep'oint where crossed by. the Imperial was an unlawful' obstruction .xlllvigation, that fact· would, not ,justify' the ,pilot of the ImperiaJ! in :wantonly or negligently running :his vessel dQul oHt. iIn such case' the Imperial would beheld liable for halfthe ,damages by ld. .' But there is no evidence tending to show that the ,pilot knew'this nable was so near the surface of the waler, or that he: was negligent: in not asrC6rtainitig the fact.· Indeed.,hestatf3s in his testimony that he.hoo;pre,V;iously paaaedsafely ove:rrthe,cableof this Jerry,.in at a less distance from the boat, with a vessel drawing 20 feet of,water. ,_,' The use of -cables, in themainteu.ance offerries 'on the Wallamet river 'appears .to, be a .great convenience,if not a necessity. ' This being so, it "Pll1y be said that ships and other means of navigation should be required, Je.sin the of bridges,ito yield some portion of their abstract, right to . move, at pleasure on or through the water, for the benefit of the ferries. , But the legislature is the only authority that can be invoked 'for this purpose., So long as the oablei$ used without the, sanction of tbelegislacourt finds as a matter of fact, that in the instance before it, i-:the (l8;ble is a ma.terial obstruction to navigation, it must ,give judgment ,.accordingly. The libelisdisniissed, andthe'claimabts mustha\'e a de. ()ree for oosts. .
: ; '/;
;Yon, L. E.& W. R. Co. v. TREI;,L.
COiJrcuit O(J1J,'1't, B. D.
York· . March 25, 1889;)
WHARVES-RIGHT TO StlRROUNDlNG WATER.
Thefact·that a ferry-boat lays such a· usual course 6S to bring her 'Yithi.n 10 or 20 feet of the COrner ofa pier. not itself the boundary of hetsllp, ·hligging it as closely as she can, does not give any superior right to so much of the water around the pier as may be required for the uses for which was erected.
The Fa'OOrtta, 8 Blatchf. The John Oooker, 10 Ben; 488: The bfa, 8 Fed .. Rep. 716, 25 Fed. Rep. 844; The Monticello, 15 Fed. Hep. 474: M(;Farlanilv.Lead 00.· 17 Fed. Rep. 253; TheFa'nWood, 28 Fed. Rep:. 874; The Delaware, 6 Fed. Rep. 195: The Sigel, 6 Ben. MO, 14·Blatchf. 482:/The Pavonia, 26 Eed. Rep. no; TkeManhasset, 34 Fed. Rep. 42:l;Fay's Oaae, 15 Pick. 253; The Alabama, 1 Ben. 483; l.'he Ariadne, 7 Blatchf. 212;;Xhl:! Mary Wflder. Taney. 567; The Farragut, 10 .rke A;riadne. III
Wall. 470. . .' .
dividing tbe damages. The John S. Darcy, 29 Fed. Rep. 644. E. D. McCarthy, for the 1. L. Fisber, cited: .,
Appeals by both vessels iromdecreeof district court under
1'ke Pavonia, 26 Fed. Rep.nQ; The O. H. Beuff. a2 Fe4.Rep.237;'/'helJ'refi State, 91 l;!, The 9alatea, 92 U. S. 439; The .Ferr.y.Boq,t. Relief. 01· cott,104;T!li l!'avorlta. ll:l.Wall. 598; Fed: Rep. 416; The EdwinH. WeMter; 22 Fed·.Rep. In; The Ottawa. 8 Wall;:268; St; John vl Paine, to Bow.' 563: The Genesee Ohief. 12 How.·443: 1!aru!y v. Packet 00.,23 How. 287; The Ariadne, 13 Wall.475:TheO'tllofParl.,,·9. Wan: 634; The Ant; 10 Fed. Rep. 294; Tke B. B. Saunder8. 25 Fed. Rep. 729: (J()slee v 18.1I0W,. 463·
,Adams, for th.e .tobn S. Darcy, cited: ·. :,
in .fault iaaffirmed. Such affirfUallce, however,is not an assent toihe proposition that the ferry·boats .I!>t· street "theexolusive use oftbe clearwater about 108 widtb, the Twenty.Second street pier and the lO'Yer !erry-rack; 1 The fMt that afetry-boat lays such an "ordinary and usual course" l;lS will bring bel' within 10 to 20 feet of the corner of a pier, boundary of her slip, "bugging it as closely as she can," (as, the wit:nesses put it,) is not sufficient to give any exclusive or superior rights to the of so much of t.he water area surrounding the pier as lIlaY, be required for the uses to subserve which it wa,s erected. TM. MC4T'!J Po-weU, 86lr-ed.. Rep; 598.
J. ,The decision of tbe district judge' holdingbQth,vE!S!!el1J