whetber,upon the evidence the Niagara was such a participant in the navigation as to be chargeable with half the damages. See The Doria J£ckhojf, 32 Fed. Rep. 555; The Carrier Dove, Brown. &L. 113; The 'Vriobd,13 Prob. Div. 55.
THE MYSTIC. FINCH 17. THE LIGHTER MYSTIC.
(Dt8trict Court, S. D. NfJUJ York.
December 15, 1890.)
COLLISION-PERSONAL INJURIES-:-MuTlCAL FAULT-PART DAMAGES.
. While the can'll-boat on which the libelant lived lay moored in U," slip. the bowsprit of ,the M: approached the cabin, threatening collision. The libelant ran out to remove her child out of harm's way, and, having done so, put her hl;lnd against the end of the bowsprit, to fe,nd it off. Her wrist was caught betwecn the bowsprit and the cabin window frame,and was broken. Held, that the libelant, though phargeable with contributory negligence, could recover part of her damin' accordance with the decision of the supreme court 1n the case of The Maa: . , Morril, 11 Sup. et. Rep. 29.
In Admiralty. Hylftnd
for libelant. Alexander Campbell, for claimant.
J. The libel states that, while the Yonkers, upon which the libelant lived, lay along-side the wharf, on the lower side of the slip, between piers 28 and 29, East river, bow in, the lighter Mystic,in going out of the slip, ran :her bowsllrit into the stern caGin of the Yonkers, and struck and broke the libelant's arm, for which recovery ofdamagesissol1ght.. The answer alleges that while the lighter was stu.ok faat-between two other canal.boats, in endeavoriug to get out of the slip\: thaYonkers drLted down upon the bowsprit of the Mystic. The weioght,of:pro6f and of probability is inconsistent with the alleged drifting dewn of the Yonkers upon the Mystic. All the evidence indicates that the U10vement of the bow. of the lighter was a very gentle movement,and I have no doubt, taking all the evidence together, that it was some swil)gof the bow of the lighter towards the Yonkers, while her stern was rpoving in between the . other boats, and while the lighter's men we,re .endeavoring to make'rnoreroorn fo1' her, that brought ahout the collision. While tbe lighter is there lore responsible, the damages would evidently have been but slightbad not the plaintiff herself most improperly and foolishly endeavored to fend ofI'the bowsprit by putting her hand, against the end of ita:s it arproachedthe cabin; the result of which was ,that her hand was caught between the end of-the bowspl'itand the frame of the cabin window 1 and the oilter bone of her wrist broken. A few seconds previously she had seen the bowsprit approaching, as she satin the' cabin/and she ran out to rescue her chihI trom danger, ,who
was playing on the deck. The child was placed out of harm'&; Way fore the libelant put her hand on the end of the bowsprit to ward it off; so that this act does not have the justification of any necessity in order to rescue the child. Nor was it such an act as persons of ordinary prudence under such circumstances would have committed. CoUins v. Davidson, 19 Fed. Rep. 86. It was really the thoughtless, instinctive act of a person seeking to avert a trifling damage, without thinking of the ineffectiveness of the attempt, or its manifE:st danger to herself. The libelant is therefore chargeable with contributory negligence. In aC.cordance with the recent decision of the supreme Gourt in the case of The Max Morris, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29, affirming the judgment of this court, (24 Fed. Rep. 860,) the libelant, though not entitled to full 'damages, may ,Jet be allowed some com pensation for her actual pecuniary loss. She 'fas incapacitated from her usual work for about three months, duri[)g which .time sbe was obliged to procure assistanpe in per family dutie,ll, ,at the expense of board and wages. I charge to herself her pain :Rnd suJfflring and inconvenience, and allow her a decree for $125. This i\mqunt, though [!lmall, is much more, it must be remembered, than the qamage from the collision with the Yonkers would have been.
THE RELIANCE. JOSEPH EDWARD DREDGIN.G MISSISSIPPI
Co. v. THE NAUTIQUB.
'D. THE RELIANCE.
(District Oourt, E. D. New York.
December 26, 1890.)
A in deepening the channel of New York bay, on arrlval at her dredging ground found her pumps out of order. While repairing them, she made a oirouit: and, rAturning, swung into the channel under the bows of stealli'ship N., whicn was going to sea. The dredge had no lookout, and the man at the wheel did not &ee the N. until she was upon him. The place where the collision 'o«Qurred was buoyed as a place beilig dredged, and signals were flying on the dredge to show her oharacter. At the time of the collision, an incoming steamerwaa passing the N., and the attention of the latter's officers was given to her. Held. that Doth vessels'were in fliult in keeping insuffioient lookout. ' . ' ': ''
In Admiralty. Cross-suits for damage by collision. Sullivan &: CmmweU and Carpenter &: Mosher,-for the Reliance. Butler, Stillman &: Hubbard, for the Nautique.
BENEDICT, J. These actions arise out of a collision that occurred in broad daylight in the lower bay of New York, near buoy No between the steam-ship Nautique and the dredging steamer Reliance, on
Reported by Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of the New York bar.