Chamberlain v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Failure to comply with the regulation in case a collision ensues is declared to he a fault, and the offending party is made responsible for -all loss or dam-. age resulting from the neglect; but it is not declared by that section, or by any other rule -of admiralty law in the jurisprudence of the United States, that the neglect to show signal lights, on the part of one vessel, discharges the other, as they approach, from the obligation to adopt all reasonable and practicable precautions to prevent a collision. Absence of signal lights, in eases falling with the act of Congress, renders the vessel liable to the extent already mentioned; but it does not confer any right upon the other vessel to disregard or violate the rules of navigation, or to neglect any reasonable or practicable precaution to avoid a collision, which the circumstances afford the means and 'opportunity , to adopt. * *’ * All we mean to decide is that the neglect of the propcllor to show signal lights did not vary the obligations of the Atlantic to observe the rules of navigation, and to adopt all such reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent the collision, as the circumstances in which she was placed gave her the opportunity to employ.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Port of Portland v. United States

2. ““The Atlantic is chargeable with fault, because the officer of her deck did not seasonably and effectually change the course of the vessel, or slow or stop her engine, so as to avoid a collision, after he discovered the white lights- of the approaching vessel. Whether his neglect to adopt these precautions. or some of them, arose from inattention or rashness, is immaterial, as, in either event, it was a culpable omission of duty, plainly required by the rules of navigation in that emergency, and one which the dictate of common prudence as well as a proper regard for the safety of his passengers should have prompted him to perform. * * * The officer of the deck admits that the speed of the steamer was not slackened at any time throughout, the entire period that elapsed after he saw the white lights of the approaching vessel. On this ground we think the steamer was clearly in fault.”. The Stanmore, 10 Prob. Div. 135; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97 , 7 Sup. Ct. 1158 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Livingstone

3. ““Ocean steamers usually have two lookouts in addition to the officer of the deck, and in general they are stationed one on the larboard and the other on the starboard side of the vessel, as far forward as possible, and during the time they are so engaged they have no other duties to perform; and no reason is perceived why any less precaution should be taken by first-class steamers on the Lakea Their speed is quite as great, and the navigation is no .less exposed to the dangers arising from the prevalence of mist and fog, or from the ordinary darkness of the night; and the owners of vessels navigating on those waters are under the same' obligations to provide for the safety and security of life and property as attaches to those who are engaged in navigating the seas.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.