48 F. 764 | 2d Cir. | 1891
The petitioner, a Danish corporation, was the owner of two steam-ships, the Geiser and Thingvalla, which collided on the high seas, not far from Sable island, on August 14, 1888. The Geiser sank almost immediately in deep water, the steamer and her cargo being totally lost. The Thingvalla’s bow was smashed in, but, by careful management, she was navigated, stern first, into Halifax, N. S. The petitioner’s interest in the Thingvalla and her pending freight, which was duly appraised at $64,680.66, has been deposited in the district court for the eastern district of New York. The petitioner, claiming that the collision occurred through no negligence of those in charge of the Thingvalla, prayed to be decreed free from responsibility for the loss or damage occasioned by the collision. Several insurance companies, and others interested in the cargoes laden on the steamer, appeared and joined issue with the allegations of the petition, contending that the collision was caused by the fault of the Thingvalla. The district court held the Thingvalla free from fault, and that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability, provided for in the act of March 3,1851, and its amendments. Appeal was taken to the circuit court, which affirmed the decree of tbe district court, and certain of the respondents appealed to this court. 42 Fed. Rep. 331.
The collision happened about 4:30 a. m. It was dark, the weather being cloudy, with a little rain, but there was no fog, nor such degree of haziness as would prevent vessels from seeing each other’s lights at a sufficient distance easily to maneuver so as to avoid one another. As to the navigation of both steamers there is no particular dispute. The Geiser was outward bound, on a course of E. $ S. magnetic; the Thing-
The respondents insist that a primary cause of the collision was the improper position of the Thingvalla’s white light; that it did not show properly. Two of the Geiser’s watch on deck at sighting survived the disaster. One of them, a boy, was not in the employ of the petitioner at the time of the trial, and was not -called. The other was her third officer, who, as stated above, looked at the reported light so hastily that he'was unable to say whether it was red or green, and “does not remember to have seen her top light.” A passenger who first saw the Thingvalla after the collision, when she, having backed;out, was about 1,500 feet aft, saw only her red and green lights. It was then daybreak. It is argued that, because the lookout of the Geiser reported “a light,” and not “a steamer,” he could not have seen the white light. And the same is urged as to her first officer, who was a competent navigator, and whose orders can be accounted for only on the theory that he did not know it was a steamer to which he Avas maneuvering. But the master of the Geiser saAv the Thingvalla’s mast-head light whehe Avas called on deck, just before the collision, saw it again when she Avas backing away, and again when he was swimming. The second officer of the Geiser also saw it, as he climbed aboard the Thingvalla,
It is contended that the white light was improperly placed, in that il was not more than 20 feet above the deck, when it should have been upwards of 46, which is her beam. The first officer of the Thingvalla was asked: “Question. How far off can your lights be seen at night? Answer. You can see about eight miles off, — the head-light: that mast is twenty feet high.” Other than this there is no evidence in the case as to elevation above the hull. The latter part of the answer was irrespon-sive to the question, and only by inference applies to the light. It was not fastened to the foremast, nor even to the jib stay, which leads to the foremast-head, but to the foretop-rnast stay, and how high up on that sn?v v was fastened nowhere appears. We clo not think there is suili-‘Aciv evidence to warrant a finding that the light was set lower than the rules inquired.
Vov can the Thingvalla be hold in fault for porting. Her navigator v white light and both side lights, indicating an approaching si.. so situated as to have her (the Thiiigvalla) ahead. lie saw tin», lights, as h» judged, about !„.U' a point on the port bow, a position from which ho. the skie light overlap a half point) the three lights of ü:o Thingvali *, .miff in: risible to tbe approaching steamer, indicating to her that tlio riimgvalia hod her (the Geiser) airead. As the situation appeared to him, the steamers were meeting end on, or nearly so, and article 15 required him to alter his course to starboard. The respondent’s counsel has argued most elaborately and ingeniously that the navigator of the Thingvalla was mistaken as to the situation; that the vessels wore in fact on crossing courses, the Thiugvalla having the Geiser on her starboard bow. If that were so, article 16 required the Thing-valla to keep out of the way, and allowed her to do so by altering her course to starboard, if that would accomplish the object, the Geiser holding her course, if the situation was as respondents claim, the Thingvalla was not in fault for porting. But it is further contended
There is nothing in the suggestion of improper speed or insufficient lookout. The vessels sighted each other at sufficient distance to avoid collision without any difficulty, bad there not been improper navigatior of the Geiser after sighting. The decree is affirmed, with costs of this appeal to the petitioner against the appellants.-