36 F. 598 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | 1888
On July 7, 1886, the barge Philip Sinnott lay along the south side of pier foot of Twenty-Fourth street, North river, her bow towards shore, and her stern projecting into the river beyond tbe end of the pier. The extent of this projection is in dispute; the appellants claiming that it was about 16 feet, and the appellees insisting that it did not exceed 9 or 10 feet. In either case it was less than the width of another barge or lighter which at the same time lay across the end of the pier, with her bows pointing down the river. .The width of this other barge — the Anderson — was 23 feet, and it seems probable, from the evidence, that the Sinnott’s stern did not project more than half that distance beyond the end of the pier. This Twenty-Fourth street pier projects 512 feet from the line of the bulk-head or shore-line. Two hundred feet or more below it lies the northerly rack of the Pavonia ferry. ■Still further down is the pier, foot of Twenty-Second street, distant nearly 600 feet from the Twenty-Fourth street pier. It projects from the bulkhead or shore-line only 400 feet. About 3:30 p. m. the steam-boat Mary
That the Powell was in fault seems entirely clear. She was in motion, the barge fast to the pier. Pier pilot had been engaged for four years in piloting her at that dock, and was familiar with the sot of the tides there. He saw the lighters before he started, and undertook to swing out far enough to just clear them. As he himself expresses it, “If I went clear of it, I was well satisfied.” He had, for all that appears in the case, the whole of the North river to swing in; and when, after the collision, he allowed himself more room, he passed, as he admits, without any trouble, clearing the lighter at the end of the dock with a margin of 16 feet. There is nothing in this to make out a case of inevitable accident, under the authorities. Steam-Ship Co. v. Steam-Ship Co., 24 How. 307; The Morning Light, 2 Wall. 550; The Baltic, 2 Ben. 452. It was, as the learned district judge held, an error of judgment by the Powell’s officers, occurring naturally enough, and not necessarily impeaching their general skill and judgment, but none the less'it was an avoidable-mistake. They undertook to shave too close, "when they had abundant room to spare, and the boat must respond for their error. The John Brotherick, 8 Jur. 276.
It is further contended on behalf of the Mary Powell that the Sinnott was herself in fault, because her position, at the pier, with her stern projecting, was an improper one, and rendered her an additional obstruction to navigation. The mero fact that a vessel lying at a pier is so berthed as to project beyond the corner of the pier is not by this court deemed sufficient cause for condemning her to contribute for the damages resulting from a collision occurring while so berthed. The Canima, 32 Fed. Rep. 302. The situation of the projecting vessel must be such as improperly to obstruct the colliding vessel’s access to or egress from her pier, or in some way to complicate her proper movements. In the case at bar such interference with the Powell is not made out. It is true that she had to swing out from her own pier in order to take her course; but the designers of the pier plan of this city, when they thrust the upper pier 112 feet further out than the lower one, made it necessary for every boat bound' up the river from the lower pier to make such swing. It is also true that she had to swing further out than would be necessary merely to clear the pier itself; but the pier was built for use, and its width was thus liable to be increased by the beam of vessels lying at each