open sea does not tend to excuse their existence in the bay, where vessels encountered, in motion and at anchor, continually. Second,in'failing to seethe schooner's light earlier, and keeping further off. 'fhird, in failing to turn further southward when she did see it. in turning back to her original course while two of the barges were on the other side of the schooner. The liability of the Oakland is equally clear. She might indee<i be oondemned on the steamer's testimony alone. As before stated, she was without a proper lookout, and was allowed to drift with the current. With her great length of hawser she could by proper vigilance have so controlled her course as to pass without colliding, notwithstanding the steamer's faults. The testimony from the steamer justifies this view. As, however, the steamer and this barge, I am informed, belong 'to the same owners, the result must be the same whether one or both be condemned. I have said sufficient to indicate'my reasons for the decree about to be entered, and will not therefore pursue the subject fUrther.
BALTIMORE STEAM PACKET SAME
Co. et al. Co. et al.
V· .BALTIMORE STEAM PACKET
(Circuit Court of Appeals. Fourth Oircuit. October 11,1892.)
CoLLISION BETWEEN STEAMERS-SIGNALS-FAILURE TO It.VERSE.
A collision happened in the nighttime at the junction of the Ft. and Brewerton channels of the Patapsco river, between t'r0 sidewheel Iia8Sehger steamers. the Virginia and the Louise. The Louise. the incoming steamer,' at a proper distance. signaled to the Virginia by two blastsJ;hat she desired to take the southerly side of the channel. being the side which wll's on her port. The signal was answered by a steam tug, which was he,tween her and. the Virginia. Without getting any reply from the Virginia, the Louise put her helm to starboard, and continued. at her full speed of 11 miles an hour. untll she was about a quarter of a mile from the Virginia. when she again gave a,signal of two blasts.. The Virginia, being then over on the southerly edge of the channel with her wheel to starboard, and the channel being obstructed by a schooner. Was uuable to avoid the Louise, and they collided just at the bend of the channel. Held. that theJ,.ouise was in fault (1) in putting her helm to starboard. and taking the side of the channel which was on her port. without getting an assenting signal from the Virginia; (2) in not obeying the rule which required her, having the Virginia on her starb.oard side. to keep out of the Virginia's way; (S) because, when the risk of collision was apparent, the Louise did not stop and reverse her engines. but merely slowed. 49 Fed. !tep. 84, affirmed. The Virginia heard the signal of two blasts given by the Louise. and. when the tug answered, supposed itwasintellded for the tug. She continued at JuUspeed.
. but-nllfthlll" made out.' . came 'rom behind.
bQ.),f' a 'mAe apart.· Then'thl¥ Virltinillo blew danpi'
leall than 'reversed, alJd'did all she <IOnid to avoid. Ii ICOllilliiJa.:' ' ,He£di': that the, was :in faul\; in continuing at. : in pllloCe lQ.,vlOl$tloll.qt ,rwe and hlltve a " tinct tind.erstanding wJ til tHe" ,.bY lilte.1'd11a;.. ge .of . by in, spectol'll" 1\111e 8; ,49 Fed. &,,'84, aOirmed,' ,,' I . ' ; , ,: "i' .
the lrtdll;nghtll .",ud
the' P..MWle no'r BtgnM'ed 'ul1tltthe Louise'
:Alppeal froDi; the 'Circuit- 0.oui:tof.tbe United States for the District
;In Admiralty. Cross. libels .for damages bet.ween erB.'i Judgmemtin the district court (49 Fed. Rep. 84Hhatboth steamerS1were in fault. AtJj.rm"d,by circuit court. ' All appeal. Affirmed. Rober/; Smith. ,andPl101M8G. ,Hayea., for petitioners. , John for Bw.timore Steam Packet Company. H.,V. ,D. Steamboat Company.) . ulltice,. Go"". ,Citcuit judge, and! SIMONTl;)N. Before: FULLER, , ;';;, '1. · ,;;1 "
SIMONTON, District Judge. These cases grew out of a collision ill Patapsco river, not far from'the city of Baltimore, on 28th July, 1890, between the excursion steamer Louise, of the 'folchester Steamboat Steam Packet ComCompany, and the steamer pany. The Louise had on board a large number of passengers, of whom were .. or}l*!S instituted agamst the owners of bo\h steamers m the state court of Maryland to recover damages were filed in the district court seeking dtliilbility the part'of these owners, Li\All. were; cons?-lIdated. was heard lD the i,t;l fauJt, were dIVIded between them, and the gross' amount of theIr apprmsed values were apportioned among the,pnrties entitled to bring action for the injuries sustained. The case was carried into the circuit court, and ,of the dlitt7:ct judge wa.s ,affirrrled in evety respect;· It comes before' us on appeal,. frornthis deCree. ' :. place of the col,liili911 was the', Pil.tapsco dyer.. This river has in it dredged channels. f)OheStl the Brewerton chnnel runs from ChesaW.by W..'l W. untilHmeets the McHenry channel. This Ft. McHenry ,ohannel rUllS from its jtll1ctiqn with the Brtlwerton W. ()f Baltimore. Where the two .Although. for.,.vessels of the draft of plehtyofwll.ter in the river on each side these we oftbesee,hannels,stiUtM,AQ,annela llregerlerallyused pysteamers, who, as a, rnle,keep 011 of the obanpel to tl,le starboard. On the day:Qfi,collision, abouti8.:11 1'. M. ,.the Virginia was coming from Baltimore down tbe Ft. McHe,nry channel, at. her usual.' speed of; !'.l. miles ,an time. Shewas nearing tbebend. ,Approaching her'-!Ilthe .BrewertQuiebll.nnel, beyond
the benq,Wfj,s the three-mast Yalej proqeeding under her own sails Haltimore. . She was in mjd-<;hanne1. .Still furtAer: dQn the river"and in the13rewerton cQanntl1, was the steamer LQuise, on way from Tolchester to:aaltimore, with a large on time, proceeding at a rate of 11 or 12 miles an hour·. Outside of off·the st:uboard bow the channel, to the nortlnvard and of the Yale, was the tug Mamie, apparently gQingtowards the Yale, seeking a tow. All these vessels had the proper lights set. The steamtheir own sides of the channel. When about a mile and ers three quarters from the Virginia, the Louise, seeing her across the bend, .the headlight, and her red light, blew two, intended for the Virginia. This signal was answered by the MaD:i\ie, and assented to.. No answer came from the Virginia. Without waiting for lUiy reply, the Louise starboarded her wheel, and, when the tug answered, starboarded a little more, audproceeded .on her cOUrse in the direction. of the, Yale, porting her helm a little. Her movements were obscured from the Virg;pia by the interpos,tion of the Yale. Her direction carried her of the Yale; and gettingout behind the port quarter of the. schooner, she saw theYirginia coming towllrds her with both red and green ligb"ts showing. The Louise again blew two blasts ofbElr whistle; Her witnesses say that these We,re answered by the, Virginia. :rhis is, denied by the for the Virginia. At all events, imQ1edjateJy after thetwc;> whistles' from tqe 4>uise, the Vit:ginia qlew dllnger signals, began at oqce,to reverse: In an almost incalcula,bleijme the two collided"the Virginia.AAving made only tworevolutions of her,wheel backward. Five revolutions would reverse The Virginia. tbe .Louiseon her. starboard 'quarter about 20 to feet.froro her stern. JusLbefore the collision the Louise slackened her At thepOIl,ision, she stopped her engines. . speed a, The re.ajlOllS by the distric.tju,dge for holding the T.J01;tse in fault.ar,eSQ clear and conclusive (49 Fed. I;tep.84) that they need not be repeated. They command our concurrence. We ever, as he did also, gr!Jat ,difficulty.with the questiol) as to the Virginia. Shewcas well appointed, had proper lights and lookout, and every .oIle on duty upon her was at his post, and vigilant. When the first signal o( the Louise was heardqn the Virginia, /lhe was seen distinctly. But her sigpalligllts were not seen. At that time she was passing, behind the Y 'and only per saloon lights could be, observed. The master of the noting tbis, and observing the distance opened bet",een her and the Yale, conjectured that it was the intention of the Louise ,to pass between the Mamie and the Yale to the starboard of the schooner. The reply signah)f the Mamiese:emed to donfirm himin'this and he pai/Ino'special attention to the Louise or hersigual, all his observationt() the schooner, and keeping out of her way. The liuH and the sails of the Yale obscured the certain was known of her IDO\Tements, when she appeared unexpectedly from behind the Ister11 of the¥ale otl'·her !·poi"tquarter. '. Her second, signal wasl!l!uhird, ,f,QC,ognized,and answered by the her master insistso,bythe
Insmntly' too late for 'the 'collision, almost 'Up'to the second blaSt 6f the Louise the Virginia had, proceMM at fuUspeed, not anticipating any danger from r:Afterhe:lIeard'this blastther master did all that the exi' , ' .i , : r. . .' gencyte4ttired. Whefitbe Virginiahell'td the first bla.stOf the Louise they were about a mile "and1three quartElraapart,iri converging channels, with a vessel under sall' between them,l'and approachihg each other at an aggregate speed (}f 25 miles an hour,---8;'very little more than four minutes apltft. Tbeysllwere in a' place full Of danger, nnd where, tHere was great liabUity:t>frdolliSful1. Tlte Katelrvirtg,' 2' Fed. Rep. 919. This blast of the Louisegawhotiee he8;ring it that she was leaving her euscharinel,randwascomirig over to that side of it on which Wli!ftheVirginia; .: Her master saw the Louise in the act of this 'thQlt :her had disappeared behind the Yale, and that her'saladn lights were disappearing in the same way. He knew that tbeLoulsein. facti had got behind the Yale, and that her future tnovement.si if entirely Uhknown, were at least, undeHain. Yet the Vi'l'ginia 1f'Bl:l"kept at no whatever being taken for any actiot1;6n the part otthe Louise; theimasteroftbft-Virginia relying theory::thftt':shewotild' pass to them,.arboard of the entirelyupoh laid down for preventing collisions df'V'essels, (Rev. St.§J4288,) the regulati.o'ns prescribed by the board lof supervising inspeetors,and"giventhe forea of the law 'under, section 4405, provide for every"'Vtobable cobtiagen6)" 'These leave bunittle room for mere co:njectl1re in: controIlibgtheaction of the .master , and pilot; 'Each of them llBsinbis power tlie meRnS of certaintytbe 'intention and course of an steamer! ,He must use them. Notwithstanding this, etrorscommitted 'by orie of two vesselsapproa:cll.ifig eachdther from opposite directions do n6texcuse the other'fromadopting every proper prec8:ution required by the special Circumstances' ofthe case toprpventa" collision. .Rule 24; The Maria Martin,' 12 WaU.47; The Scotia, 14 WaIL 181.' If there be any uncertainty as to the intentions, of the approaching vessel, this of itSelf calls for the closest wateband' the highest'degree ofdiligence on the part of the other vessel withl'eference to her movements, tind it behooves those in char.ge to ,be themselves bf every avoid,notonly a collision,Hut the risle' df such a The ManitOba, 122 U. S, l!08,7S11;p.Ct. Rep.' U58. In the Mr. Justice CLIF92U. S. 432:: , '", '
and to prea.n.d prOp,llfty in. peJ:ilou& pursuit; not to enable those is to, adopt" if, P9,ssible. necessary to avoid such B ,determine bowUttle'th'ey Can do in that direction without becoming respoosible ,for itscbnsequenceli it occurs. It " . , , .,' , . serve
When·tbe ·Louise disappeared bebind' the' Yale under a starboard W!heel,a8 her blasts declared, 'coming in. the'dir.ection of the Virginia.
· THE LOUISE.'
the master of the Virginia could and should have ascertained her intention; and while doing so he S'hould·have idiminished his speed. Rule 21. 1 The collision occurred almost immediately after the appearance of the Louise from behind· the .' port 'quai-terdf the Yale. Their aggregate speed was at least 25 miles an hour, at which rate a half mile seconds. She then was cerwould be traversed in 1 mintite and tainly less than a half mile from the Virginia,-a fact not known to the latter vessel, but which could haW been known to her. This want of knowledgecauae,d the nonobservance of rule 3 of the board. of supervising inspectors for lakes and seabOard, (page 25 ,)toWhich the treasury department bad dilled special aheritionby circular, 25th February, The sailing vessel interposed these. increased the responsibility of each. Both of them had specilil duties as to her. Her action might have at any.tithe compelled either of them to a sudden movement to keep out of her way. It was ,a situation demanding the greatest vigilance. The full speed of the Virginia, as the event showed, prevented her from adopting such measures as would have avoided collision. If she had not been going at this rate of speed, her course could have been cliecked, and the Louise would' have cleared her. This speed contributed to thecoIIision, and was a fault. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with interest; the costs of the ap' peal to be paid by the appellants.
l"Every steam vessel, wllen approaching another vessel so as to involve risk of collision. shall slacken her speed, and, .·f necessa,ry,:stop and reverse. * * *:" I Rule 8. "If. when steamers are approaching each other,tne. pilot of either vessel fails to understand the course or intention. of the other. whether from signals, beinll' ,ttiven or answered erroneously, or from other causes, tlle pilot so in immediately signify the same.·oygiving several short and rapid blasts whistle; and, if the vessels s1).a1l have approached within a haUl mile of eacll other, botllsllall be immediately slowed, sr'"ad barely sufficient for steerage way until tile proper signals are giveD, answeredt au understood, or until tlle vessels sllall have passed otller. "
} i .i.: ..
, THe' Nil
, " I
r -"',' ,
Se'ccnid Circuit. Ootober
t; . '
N08. 88. 89.
. '1'01' collision <scbuiTihg.1Jl New a and' a ..t.he 'latter three at no tune movinp; more than two lII'teamshilllJ1 charA'e'oft«rl) bqur, that the ste",mer might havll so shaped' bet' course whelih4lfa mile away uto easily avoid danger of collision', but the district court found that the vesselsW,ould have safely passed starboard·W starboard had not one of the tugs, owing to inattention to the steamer's movestarboard and been followed by the ship; that there .ments, hauled off IOOkoutlUUlitllE!r of the 'or the ship j and' that those in charge were inattentiveti'lthe tllfD41lldf tbesteamer. ' Held, tnat on the facts found the steame!' mUstbll' aequitte.diof 'fauli,f\li',if negligent iD the beginning, her naRli. ,',,geDce a eaWle of thecollisioD. ', ·
" .·.. - A tow by two tugs under ,al1agreement that the, tugs .,' shOUld 'hliivepraetlcal hElt, and tlie masterpf ODe tug stoOd upon the , ,and de1lveredorderll; which were 'oatedbY tbelattel"to'the ShiP'li crew. ,. ;AfaUltwasoommittl'ld by the other tug, whereiD it was followed by the ship through orders thus delivered, resulting in a collisioD with a steamer. Held, that while the tug was not the mere agent of the ship so as to render the latter liable under the rule of re8pondeat superior, yet the ship was a participant in the fault, and on that ground was liable with the tugs. The Doris Eckhoff, 1 C. C. A. 494, 50 Fed. Rep. 134, 1 U. B. App. 129, distinguished.
Both tugs were liabl,! because they were engaged in a joint undertaking and belonged to the same person, and the collisioD was caused" by the concurring negligence of the masters of both.
'" 8.urS-ApPORTIONKBNT 011'
Under these circumstancest the decree properly apportioned the damages of the steamer between the ship ana the two tugs, and divided the damages received by the ship between herself and the tugs.
BAl\fB-APPEAI.--RllIVIEW-CONOLUSIONS 011' F.leT.
In a collision case the district court's coIJcluslons of fact will not be disturbed when they involve doubtful questions of fact depending upon testimony which is quite conflicting, and upon tne credibillty of the witnesses examined in the pres· eDce of the court.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Affirmed. For opinions delivered by the court below, see 44 Fed. Rep. 392, and 46 Fed. Rep. 860, where the facts are fully stated. . F. Bronson Winthrop and Lewis Ca88 Ledyard, for the Niagara.