The Majestic, infra. A half hour, it is said, would be needed to turn such a/tow. She might, indeed, have signaled; but no regulation required signals, and in broad day so large a raft of boats in tow was a very conspicuous object. Its character was perfectly well known to the steamer, and the pilot of the tug had no reason to suppose any signal needed to the Sandy Hook boats for s,+ch a tow. Decrees for the libelants against the Monmouth, with costs, and for dismissal as to the Raritan, with costs, with an order of reference to compute the damages.
THE MAJESTIC.THE NANNIE LAMBERTON. NJWlON
THE MAJESTIC and THE NANNIE LAMBERTON.
(District Oourt, S. D. New York. January 9,1891.)
OOLLISION-NEGLIGENCE-DAMAGE FROM STEAMER'S SWELLS.
A steamer which passes other boats at high speed, so near as to damage them by her displacement waves, is liable for such damage. See The Monmouth, ante,
SAME-TOWAGE-DuTY OF Tow ON APPROACH OF STEAMER.
Where the pilot of a tug in charge of a tow sees a large vessel rapidly approaching. and knows· her displacement waves are dangerous, it is his duty to turn the tow so as to take the waves end on, and, failing to do so, the tug will also be held in fault.
In Admiralty. Suit for damage to libelant's boat, occasioned by displacement swells of the steam-ship Majestic. Hyla.nd &: Zabri8kie, for libelant. Lord, Day &: Lord,for the Majestic. McCarthy &: Berrier, for the Nannie Lamberton. BROWN,J. On June 4, 1890, as the steam-ship Majestic was coming in from sea, her displacement waves struck the tug Nannie Lamberton, which was towing two canal-boats from the Erie basin to Hoboken; one boat being lashed on each side of her. In the high swell, and in the surging of the boats, the tug tell so heavily upon the side of the plaintiff's boat, which was on her starboard Bide, as to break several of her streaks of pine and oak, for which damage the above libel was filed. This case, in its general aspects, is quite similar to that of The Mon"Irwuth, tried shortly after this; and I need not repeat here what has been said in the decision of that cause. Ante, 809. In some particulars this case differs from that of The Monmouth. The Majestic was golReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of tile New York bar.
FEDERAL REPORTER I
ing, as her officers say, certainly not over 12 knots an hour, and probably not over 7. rrhepilotofthe Lamberton estimates her speed at 13 knots, and her distance in pass.ing at from 700 to 800 feet. The accident oCcurred a little to the northward of the bell buoy, below Governor's island; the tug and tow having been previously headed for Hoboken. But the Majestic is a much large! ship than the Monmouth, being one of the largest and swiftest of the ocean steamers, 582 feet long by 57 beam and 22 feet draft. Her waves at the same speed would naturally be larger. The Majestic's witnesses, however, are. under the same disadvantage as the Monmouth's, in not having noticed the tug and tow. This was not a fleet of as in the other case; and possibly it did not attract attention, because not supposed to be probably in danger. I am obliged to accept in the main the testimony of the tow's witnesses 'is to the approximate distance of the Majestic in passing, rather than the mere inference of the steamer's witnesses, based upon the fact that the tow was not noticed, or that her usual course would take her further away. The claim that the steamer went within a length of the Statue of Liberty I regard as entireJy mistaken. According to the chart, the line of 23t feet of water is 1, 25G leet to the eastward of Liberty island. The great height of the Statue of Liberty makes more deceptive than usual any mere estimate of distance on water reckoned from that object. The course stated, viz., "a straight course for pier 5 or 6" after getting up to Robbins reef,would carry the steamer a,halfmile from the Statue of Liberty; and if, as is probable, sM rounded .towards the eastward soon after passing buoy 18, and ",ent not far to the westward of it, thence steering straight tor pier 6, that course would carry her three-fourths of the Liberty, and about wh,ere the libelant's witnesses say she was, and nearly on the same course as the Monmouth. The same observations as to the general care and skill of the officers, or in charge, in. avoiding similar accidents, are pertinent here as in the case of The Monmouth; and, on examination of the whole testimony, I am obliged to come to a similar conclusion as in that case, viz., that for some reason their usual vigilance and care were in this instance relaxed, or thatGtHe usuaJ slowing of the vessel was from some cause delayed. I cannot doubt the testimony of the boatmen as to the ,w,aves caused to the tow, or that the 'accident occurred in ijle way detailed by them; and as the weight of evidence shows thatthestealller passed probably faster than customary, and at all events ,much nearer than was uSllal, or was in any way necessary for the steamer, I must hold the Majestic liable. The Morrisania, 13 Blatchf. 512; The /)rew, 22 Fed. nep. 852, (affirmed on appeal;) The Atalanta, 34 Fed. Rep. 918· .l3utnogo9Q reason the tug should not have turned the ,to:w'sstern;directly to the wave. The Majestic was seen some time betow., She was apparently coming quiteinear to the iore tugand,tl)W',ppd.,. as the pilot said, would "likely give them a good shaking up." The coming wave was also seen some little time before it struck. The pilvtl.mew its threatening chal'ucter,and had timet()
turn stern to it. He slowed his engines, and, he says, did turn some to starboard. Other witnesses contradict him in this regard. But it is clear from the testimony that the tug was not much turned to starboard; that the wave was not taken astern, as it might have been, though the danger was seen; and for this reason I must hold the tug to blame also. Decree against both defendants, with costs.
FrrzpATBICK et ale
tI. THE STRANG. .
OaJn.t, S. D. New York. January 29.1891.)
CoLuSJow....STBUIANDSAIL-CaOSSING BOws-FLASR LIGRT-MUTUAL FAUL'l'. :'
The steBll;l4ug Stranger, shovinJr one cBnal.boatahe!\d of her. and having others lashed along-side, in going up the "North river, when little above Stony Point, came into collision in the nigbt-:timewith the schooner E. coming straight down. At the time at collision, sbe lladswung,so BSt9 head ne"rly straight acrQSs the rlvllr, to the eastward. Held. upon confiictingevideuce, (1) that the tug was previously to the westward of the line of the Schooner's' course, and improperly attempted to cross her bows; (2)thllot if, as,alleged, the E.'s,green light was obscured, tbenigl).,t was not s.o dark as to prevent seeing the schooner, at least a quarter of a. mile distant; (8) that the E. was'in 'fault for not ezhibitintt a flash or torch light, anil that this was material. : The dll,II1-agi*l Bnd cos", , !
Goodrri,ch, Deady k Goodrich and Mr. Foley, for Fitzpatrick et ale Hyland k Zabriskie, for the Stranger.
BROWN, J. The schooner 'Evoline in coming down the North mer, at about half-past 12 in the morning ofSeptember 24,' 1889, when a few hundred yards above Stony Point, cameioto collision with the canal-boat Sweet, which was in tow on the port side of the steam canal-boat Stranger; both sustained damages, for which the above cross-libels were filed. The Stranger was shoving another canal-boat placed immediately ahead of her, the, Hathaway, aud the Sweet on her port side lapped each boat about half-way. The schooner had a light breeze aft, and was coming very slowly at about the first of the ebb-tide. The canal-boat, with her tow, was also going at moderate speed, estimated at from two to four knots. .Both were proceeding, according to the testimony, very near mid-river. There is no charge that the schooner changed her course, but it is alleged that she did not show any colored lights, nor any flash light,and that she could not be seen until the time when she was first observed by.the piloto! the Stranger;. estimated at. from 200 to 300 feet distant, when he observed her apparently coming head on, and,after blowing several blasts of the whistle, he ported his wheel and steered