297 F. 251 | D. Maryland | 1924
The owner of the tug Cynthia filed a libel in rem in admiralty against the steamship Norfolk for damages-to the tug occasioned by a collision between the vessels on June 6, 1923, in the Baltimore harbor. The allegations of the libel itself, and the testimony of the libelant’s witnesses, establish conclusively that, whatever may be the cáse with the steamship, the tug was flagrantly and inexcusably at fault, as the following recital of facts offered on its behalf will show:
The tug and lighter lay in the Broadway slip, bow to the shore. It was about 5 p. m., and the day was clear and calm. Backing out and turning, the trip across was begun. No vessel headed down- from- the upper harbor in such a way as to affect the navigation of the ferry was seen, and the tug, gathering headway, proceeded at its usual speed of 6 knots per hour. When about one-third of the way across, Capt. Jorss’ sighted the Norfolk about one-fourth of a mile distant, bound down the hafbor on the starboard hand, on a course crossing that of the ferry, at an angle of about 50 degrees. He notified Capt. Robinson on the tug, who blew two blasts of the whistle indicating that he desired to .cross ahead of the steamer. No reply to the signal was received. About a minute later, when the ferry was about halfway across, and the vessels were still a safe distance apart, about one-eighth of a mile, the tug a second time blew two blasts and received no reply. It appeared to Capt. Jorss that the steamer was making a speed of 9 or 10 knots per hour. Nevertheless the tug held her course. Capt. Robinson could not see the steamer and supposed he had safely crossed her course,..
Capt. Jorss on his part apparently gave her no further attention until he heard a single blast of her whistle, sounded when the vessels were only about 100 feet apart. Then at his command, the engines of the tug were reversed at full, speed. But it was too late, and despite a similar maneuver on the part of the steamer, it collided with the lighter at a point about 230 feet from the Locust Point Slip, pushing the ferry some distance through the water, .and causing the tug to sink.
Clearly the Cynthia failed in an essential duty, and her conduct was unquestionably a contributing, if not the sole, cause of the collision.
Was ¡the Norfolk also at fault? She left the Clyde Line fjier at Key Highway and Henry street about 4:50 p. m. bound for New York. She proceeded slowly down the harbor, on her own starboard side of the channel, making from 3% to 5 knots per hour; her engines at half speed. Capt. Forrest, her master, was on the bridge directing the navigation ; her chief officer on lookout in the wheelhouse, port side, at the window; her third officer at the wheel. As she approached Locust Point, she was on a course 250 feet from the piers on her starboard, and was porting slightly to round the point. Her officers did not hear
It. was still possible at the time for the Cynthia to cross under the Norfolk’s stem, and the latter’s officers, not having heard the Cynthia’s signals, had no reason to believe that she would take any other course. Consequently the Norfolk was held on her course until it was clear that the Cynthia intended to cross ahead and uhtil the collision could not be avoided. Just before striking, the Norfolk blew a second signal blast, reversed her engines, and blew danger signals. Her officers testify that the Cynthia answered with one blast the second signal blast of the Norfolk; but, in view of the imminence of the collision at that time, this circumstance is unimportant.
The libelant contends that the Norfolk was negligent in the following particulars:
(1) That she was proceeding at excessive speed.
(2) That she did not have a proper lookout.
(3) That she was guilty of inattention to signals and of crossing signals.
(4) That she did not keep her course and speed as required by Inland Rule, art. 21.
For some time prior to the point at which her officers first saw the Cynthia, the engines of the Norfolk were at half speed, and she was certainly not making as much as 7 knots per hour, permissible under City Ordinance No. 293, April 10, 1909. This was not excessive under the circumstances.
The remaining specification of negligence on the part of the Norfolk is her failure to maintain her course and speed after the Cynthia had been sighted, and it was apparent that the vessels were on crossing courses. ¡>
The respondent contends that the presence of the steamer and tug in the neighborhood of Pier 8 made it necessary to reduce the speed of the Norfolk. This contention, however, is not borne out by the testimony. While the Cynthia was still a safe distance away, and had sufficient time to comply with the starboard hand rule, it was or should have been apparent to the master of the Norfolk that careful navigation would be required to avoid an accident. His first duty was to the nearer vessel, and he was obligated to maintain not only his course, but also his speed with reference to the crossing. Moreover, the tug and steamer were more than 1,200 feet from the Cynthia’s course, so that the Norfolk could have easily avoided a collision with the more distant vessels after she had safely passed the Cynthia.
The court must find that there was no emergency which justified the reduction of the Norfolk’s speed.
It cannot be said in this case that the Slackening of the Norfolk’s speed had no possible connection with the collision. At the moment of contact, the port bow of the Norfolk collided with the starboard side of the lighter a few feet aft its beam. The Norfolk had been running with her engines shut off for a distance of more than 600 feet as shown by the relative positions in the stream, of-, the point where her engines were stopped and the point of collision as they were marked on the chart by her master in the course of his testimony. The evidence does not demonstrate to a certainty that had the Norfolk continued at half speed, instead of proceeding with a diminishing headway, the collision would have been avoided; but the probabilities are that she would have crossed ahead of the Cynthia without accident. One comes to this conclusion, so far as the Norfolk is' concerned, with reluctance because of the glaring fault of the Cynthia; but with the Norfolk, as with the Cynthia, the case has been decided upon her own statement of the circumstances.
It follows, therefore, that both vessels were at fault, and that the damages must be divided.