Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 F. 800

Moran v. The Hackensack

New York Eastern District Court

Decided November 21, 1887.)

New York Eastern District Court · decided 1887-11-21

<p>Collision — Following Vessel— Proximity— Sudden Stop.</p> <p>It is a iauit in a vessel following another vessel, and going with the flood tide in the East river, to approach so near the vessel ahead as to be unable to avoid her in ease of a stop on the part of the leading vessel.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Testimony in this ease has satisfied me that the cause of this collision was the approach of the Hackensack to the Dumont ahead of her so near that, when the Dumont, in order to allow a vessel to pass, stopped her engine and reversed, the Hackensack had not time to avoid collision, although she promptly stopped her engine and ported her wheel.. The proof is that the tide was strong flood, and that, as soon as the Du-mont stopped and reversed her engine, the Hackensack stopped and hove her wheel hard-apqrt, but in spite of those efforts she ran into the Dumont. This shows the Hacken-sack to have been, in dangerous proximity to the Dumont. To be so near the vessel ahead in that place was a fault, and* the fault that caused the collision. There was no fault on the part of the Dumont. She made no stemway but simply stopped and reversed her engine. When she did this she had the right to presume that in that place and tide no vessel would be so near her from behind as to strike her stem without backward movement on her part.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-11-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1980

2 district ·

1018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Collision — Following Vessel— Proximity— Sudden Stop.

¶2It is a iauit in a vessel following another vessel, and going with the flood tide in the East river, to approach so near the vessel ahead as to be unable to avoid her in ease of a stop on the part of the leading vessel.

¶3Carpenter & Mosher, for libelant.

¶4Peter S. Carter, for claimants.

¶6Benedict, J.

¶7The testimony in this case has satisfied me that the cause of this collision was the approach of the Hackensack to the Du-mont ahead of her so near that, when the Dumont, in order to allow a vessel to pass, stopped her engine and reversed, the Hackensack had not time to avoid collision, although she promptly stopped her engine, and ported her wheel.

¶8The proof is that the tide was strong flood, and that, as soon as the Dumont stopped and reversed her engine, the Hackensack stopped and hove her wheel hard a-port, but in spite of those efforts she ran into the Dumont. This shows the Hackensack to have been in dangerous proximity to the Dumont. To be so near the vessel ahead in that place was a fault, and the fault that caused the collision. There was no fault on the part of the Dumont. She made no stern-way but simply stopped and reversed her engine. When she did this she had the right to presume that in that place and tide no vessel would be so near her from behind as to strike .her stern without backward movement on her part.

¶9Let the libelant have a decree, with a reference to ascertain the amount of the damage.

/32/f1d/800 · .json · Public domain