213 F. 645 | S.D. Ala. | 1914
I, however, find from the evidence that there was negligence on the part of the barkentine; that is, in the failure of the pilot to exert that needful skill required in the case in view of the locality, the attending. conditions, and the special difficulties connected therewith. The pilot, Thomas Cook, was in control of the movements of the Stranger and of the tug attending the same. He was charged with the safety of the vessel, and bound to use due diligence and care and reasonable skill in the exercise of his important functions. He is answerable if the vessel suffered damage through his negligence, or want of skill while she was under his control. He is chargeable for negligence if he fails in due care and skill in avoiding obstructions or difficulties known or which should have been known to him.
Pilot Cook was shown to have borne an excellent reputation for skill, caution, and care, and of long experience, yet in this instance it appears from the weight of the -evidence of expert witnesses in the case that he did not exercise the needful skill and attention required under the existing conditions. He undoubtedly had the degree of skill ordinarily possessed by others of his class, but it appears that he failed to apply that knowledge and skill when required, and I am of opinion that he is liable for a part of the damages which- he contributed to occasion. Cooley on Torts, 647; Mason v. Frvine (C. C.) 27 Fed. 459; Shubert v. Brown (D. C.) 45 Fed. 503; The Tom Lysle (D. C.) 48 Fed. 690-693; Wilson v. Charleston Pilots’ Ass’n (D. C.) 57 Fed. 229; The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494, 24 L. Ed. 146; The Overbrook, 142 Fed. 950, 951, 74 C. C. A. 120. The expert testimony is that it was, under the conditions and circumstances, very hazardous to attempt to take the vessel out of the slip; that it was taking great risk, and, if undertaken, due care, skill, and good seamanship required that the vessel should "have been held close to the wharf on the north side of the slip by lines therefrom fastened to the vessel.
My opinion is that the libelant is entitled to a decree for th¿ dam