41 F. 627 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee | 1890
The material facts of this case, as established by the proof before the district court, and by the additional evidence taken since the -appeal to this court, are the following: On April 4,1888, the steamer Chickasaw, a common carrier of freight and passengers, owned by the Memphis & White River Packet Company, was moored at its regular landing place at the port of Memphis, on the outside of the wharf-boat, where the water was from 60 to 70 feet in depth at the time. The river was high, and there was a good deal of .drift floating. The current was from seven to eight miles per hour, and its course was from the Arkansas shore diagonally across the river to the Tennessee shore, which it struck with most force about or below Beale street, near which point O’Neil & Co., had their regular landing for coal-barges. The Chickasaw was engaged in receiving freight preparatory to starting out on one of-her usual trips. She had no steam up, except in the nigger engine, which was insufficient to move the boat, and was used in handling heavy freight. She was fully equipped and supplied with lines, all of which were in use in securing her moorings and fastenings except one. Her master, E. C. Postal, was temporarily absent, and the steamer was in charge of her mate, James Rice, who was a competent, first-class officer, of large experience, good character, and sound judgment. The master having previously notified an agent or employe of Brown & Jones, coal dealers
In the orderly consideration of respondents’ (appellants’) liability for the loss of libelants’ coal-barge, under the circumstances stated, it is a matter of the first importance to determine what were the legal relations between the Chickasaw and the coal-flat of Brown & Jones, Avhile the latter was lashed to the former for the purpose of furnishing the desired supply of coal to the steamer. The learned district judge found from the evidence introduced before the district court that said coal-flat was left solely to the care of the Chickasaw, without any one aboard to look after it, except that two coal checkers were on it to keep account of the coal taken, but had no other duty in relation to the fiat whatever; that, the ChickasaAV having assented to the coal-flat being placed or moored along-side for the purpose of procuring therefrom her needed supply of coal, said flat, for the time at least, became as much a part and parcel of herself as if she had borne it on her deck; that, under the principle applicable to tugs and tow, the Chickasaw was in charge of said flat as the commanding vessel; that she could have limited her liability by a contract with Brown & Jones that they should retain command and control of their flat, and be responsible for her navigation and management while delivering coal; that, not having done that, the
“If steam-boats coal themselves from flats in a crowded harbor, they must use all reasonable precaution against the breaking loose of the flats; and I do not think they can, under any circumstances, voluntarily cut them- loose to. save themselves, without undertaking to answer all damages that shall come by the act to others who are in no way connected with them, or interested in the danger they seek to avert.”
■ Again, it is expressly shown by Capt. Postal that the owner of the coál-flat thus fastened to the steam-boat for the purpose of furnishing them with coal takes the chance of the flat being sunk or injured by the perils of the river. He further states that there was “a general understanding between us that the coal company is liable for the care ánd safety of their flats while they are laying ’long-side of our boats, steam-boats not under way, and having no steam up.” Under this general understanding between steam-boats and coal dealers, and in -view of the fact that, in conformity therewith, two employes of the owners were actually left in charge, to look after and take care of the fiat, as well as to see what quantity of coal was taken therefrom by the steamer, and also to signal the flat’s tug companion for help when needed, it cannot be properly held that the Chickasaw was under any duty or obligation to Brown & Jones to guard and protect their said coal-flat against dangers from floating drift. If the coal-flat had sunk when struck by the floating tree, and while moored to the Chickasaw, would the latter have been liable to Brown & Jones for the loss because of her failure to provide protection against such danger? The rule of duty and of liability laid down by the district judge seems to go to that extent, but surely the Chickasaw could not be held responsible to Brown & Jones in the case supposed. I have found no authoritj1' which would support such a proposition, and can see no reason or principle on which to rest such a responsibility. Had Brown & Jones the right to remove their tug (the motive power for the proper management and navigation of the coal-flat) for their own convenience, and for their own advantage and profit leave the flat moored to the Chickasaw, in charge of two employes, who shortly afterwards quit their post to look after other business of their principals, and, in the absence of express contract, cast upon the Chickasaw the duty and burden of guarding and protecting said flat against known dangers and perils of the river? I know of no law which supports such a proposition. Ho case cited by counsel or the learned district judge goes to that extent. It will hardly be claimed that the Chickasaw, under the circumstances ■of her situation, owed to the public or to libelants a higher measure of duty in providing protection to the coal-flat against danger of the river than she owed to Brown & Jones as owners of the flat. Such a claim would rest upon no sound principle, and finds no support in the authorities. If there was, under the facts of this case, any duty or legal requirement to guard the coal-flat against such perils as it encountered from floating drift, that duty rested upon the general owners of the flat, in whose charge, control, and management it remained; and whatever of responsibility arises from the failure to perform such requirements, or take proper precautions to prevent such danger, attached to Brown & Jones, and not to the Chickasaw. The latter cannot be held chargeable with negligence for not providing a fender or boom, or other protection against floating drift striking the coal-flat, which occupied the position and relation of an independent vessel, wholly in charge of its owners, and
It remains to be determined whether the Chickasaw is liable for cutting loose the flat. That question involves the consideration of two leading propositions: First, was the act of the mate in cutting the flat’s fastenings, under the circumstances, unlawful or wrongful? and, secondly, if lawful, was it negligently, rashly, or carelessly done, without a proper regard for the rights of others? After being struck by the floating tree, the flat, in the judgment of experienced officers and river men, was sinking rapidly, — toppling over on the larboard bow, going down “head first,” — and to all appearances would sink in three or four minutes. In sinking, it would, in all probability, turn over, dump its load of coal, and then, by force of the current, depth of water, and influence of its moorings, it would pop up under, and break a hole in, the hull of the Chickasaw, and thus cause her to sink. To have dropped the flat down and astern of the Chickasaw, if that could have been done at all, would have required 15 or 20 minutes, with all necessary linos and appliances at hand. Neither the Chickasaw nor the flat had the requisite lines to have accomplished this maneuver; nor was the Chickasaw under any obligation to have provided such lines as a matter of precaution. In this situation of affairs, the flat having, by a peril of the river against which the steamer was under no duty to guard or protect it, become not only helpless, with her sole motive power withdrawn, but placed in a position, which threatened the Chickasaw with impending and serious collision, was the Chickasaw bound, either to its owners or to the public, to allow the fastenings to stand, and take the consequences? Or had she the right to ward off from herself this threatened collision from an independent craft? I am clearly of the opinion that, in view of her relations to and connection with the coal-flat, as above stated, the Chickasaw had the right to protect itself against such a threatened collision by cutting the flat’s moorings, or by any other prudent and reasonable method open to her adoption in an emergency. It could not be doubted for a moment that, if the coal-flat had not intervened, the Chickasaw could lawfully have warded off the floating tree, though in so doing it might have received such a direction as by means of the current would have carried it against, and sunk, libelants’ coal-barge. In that case, the Chickasaw could not have been made liable for the loss. Suppose the coal-flat, before its moorings were completed, had from any cause commenced sinking. Could not the Chickasaw have shoved it off without incurring liabilities to others for the injury it might occasion to others while drifting? There can hardly be any question as to her right so to do. How can the Chickasaw’s assent or permission for the flat to secure itself by attaching temporary fastenings to her side change the steamer’s right to protect herself against danger from the flat? The two craft owed no duties or obligations to each other, as vessels, either before or after being so moored together, except that neither should occasion injury to the other wrongfully or negligently. In the Oase of The Steamer New
It is alleged in the libel, and claimed in argument, that the action of the mate was not necessary for the preservation and protection of the Chickasaw, and it is said that he “substituted a fancied for a real necessity.” In The Amethyst, 2 Ware, 20, it is very properly said that the prudence and propriety of most actions are not to be judged by the result, but by the circumstances under which they act. If they act with reasonable prudence and good judgment in a situation calling for and requiring prompt action, they are not to be made responsible because the result from causes that could not be foreseen nor reasonably anticipated, has disappointed their expectations.
The fact that the flat kept afloat long enough to cause the disaster to libelants’ barge undoubtedly tends to show that the mate was in error in thinking it would sink in a few minutes after being cut adrift, but the propriety of his actions should not be determined by the result. The standard by which to test the question as to whether the course taken by the mate was negligent or unauthorized and reckless is that of good seamanship under the impending peril. The owner of a vessel does not engage for the infallibility of the master, “nor that he shall do in an emergency precisely what, after the event, others may think would have been best.” Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100; The Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 230. Applying this rule to the conduct of the Chickasaw’s mate, there can be little or no doubt that, from the situation and condition of the flat, he had very reasonable ground for the belief that it would quickly sink, thereby greatly imperiling the steamer, and that there was con
The learned district judge correctly stated that “the burden of proof is on the vessel adrift to excuse herself,, and prima facie she is negligent unless her owners can show due diligence when she collides with one harmlessly and faultlessly at anchor;” citing The Louisiana, 3 Wall. 164; The Jeremiah Godfrey, 17 Fed. Rep. 738, and other authorities. Then,' treating the drifting fiat as the Chickasaw’s vessel, the conclusion is reached that she has not answered or met this burden of proof, or relieved herself of the imputation of negligence arising from the flat’s being adrift. It has been shown that the flat was not the Chickasaw'’s vessel either while moored or adrift, so that the rule involved did not apply to the Chickasaw, but to Brown & Jones, the general owners of the drifting flat. If they had been proceeded against, the burden of proof would have devolved upon them to rebut the prima facie liability arising from their vessel being afloat. They could have met that prima facie liability by showing that the Chickasaw, either wrongfully, or negligently and recklessly, without fault on their part, cut the flat adrift. But suppose, in attempting to place the blame on the Chickasaw, the latter had shown, as she has done in this case, that her action in cutting the flat adrift was lawful; that in so doing she was guilty of no wrong or neglect towards Brown & Jones. Could it be properly said that they had shifted the prima facie responsibility for the disaster from themselves to the Chickasaw? It would be difficult to maintain such a position.
I am unable to see any reason or ground upon which the personal decree against Capt. E. C. Postal, the master of the Chickasaw, can be rested. The libel states that at the time of the transaction he was
In the opinion of this court, no fault or negligence on the part of appellants in not protecting the flat against floating drift, in cutting the flat loose under the circumstances, is established. It follows that the decree of the district court is erroneous, and should bo reversed, which is accordingly so ordered and adjudged, and that the libel bo and is hereby dismissed at libelants’ cost.