¶11. Mu.vrnpAi, Corpopatioxt — Liability roa Detective Diiaw-Bbidoe — Oot,-1 IS1 O -V — <J UJMS «I CTIOJST.
¶2The schooner .Kim City had engaged a tug to tow her from Pine street wharf, on the Schuylkill, to Port Richmond. The tug made fast io 1ho schooner and signaled those in charge of defendant’s bridge to open the draw to lot them in. The draw was opened in response to the signal. The Vessels proceeded on their way. There was a high wind blowing at the time. Those in charge of the bridge, owing to its being' out of order, were unable to fasten the draw securely. It got beyond their control, swung round, struck and damaged the schooner. Held, that the admiralty court had jurisdiction, and that the municipal corporation was responsible i'or the negligence.
¶32. Same — Djikeotivk Buidos —Neguo-ence—Notice.
¶4When the draw of a bridge is turned to remove obstructions to navigation, it musí be securely fastened. Failure to do this is negligence.
¶5In Admiralty.
¶6The cause came up to be heard on libel, answer, and proofs.
¶7Driver & Goulstou, for libelant.
¶8McAIkhael é Warwick, for respondent.
¶11Tiie question of jurisdiction is settled by the following cases: The Ceres, 7 Wkly. Notes Cas. 576; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 35; The Rock Island, Bridge, 6 Wall. 215; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 390; Railroad Co. v. Steam-boat Co., 23 How. 219; Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U. S. 626; The Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 551.
¶12It is quite clear that the accident resulted from defect in the bridge. When the draw is turned, to remove obstruction to navigation, it is intended to be secured in place by an iron bolt and socket. This ar*44rangement is essential to safety, and when employed renders an accident, such as befel the libelant, impossible. On the occasion involved, the provision for securing the draw was out of order, and useless. Had this not been so the accident would not have occurred. The character of the weather, at the time, made the defective condition of the bridge especially important.
¶13That it was the respondent’s duty to keep the bridge in repair is not questioned. Failing to discharge this duty, it became liable for the loss thus occasioned. The defect existed for many months. After so gieat a lapse of time it should have been discovered without notice. The exercise of proper vigilance would have discovered it much earlier. The testimony shows, however, that the respondent was notified of its existence long before the accident. The cases cited by respondent’s counsel are inapplicable to the facts here involved.
¶14I find no evidence of contributory fault in the libelant.
¶15A decree must be entered accordingly for the libelant.