Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

rassing vessels making landings or leaving slips or wharves.36 The act of entering a slip in the night-time is attended with risk, and should be attempted only where the surroundings are familiar, and, even then, only under the direction of a competent pilot; and a vessel will be liable for injuries occasioned by a failure to use this degree of care.37 A vessel emerging from a dock or slip should proceed at a moderate rate of speed and under complete control, and will be liable for injuries due to disobedience of this rule.38 Thus, a pilot in charge of a steamship which, after having backed out of her slip as far as is safe, is started ahead to turn down the river, has been held negligent in not giving an order to reverse when he perceives that she fails to turn in time to prevent her running into a pier under her forward motion.39

§ 6893. Vessels Turning in Stream.-A vessel, when approaching another vessel engaged in turning, must so control her movements as not to embarrass the vessel in this manoeuvre. 10 The vessel execut

water, 155 U. S. 252; The Favorita, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 598; The D. R. Martin, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 532.

36 The Baltimore, 56 Fed. Rep. 127; The Brooklyn, 62 Fed. Rep. 759; The C. R. Stone, 49 Fed. Rep. 475; The Columbia, 29 Fed. Rep. 716; The Eldorado, 47 Fed. Rep. 71; Greenwood v. The William Fletcher & The Grapeshot, 38 Fed. Rep. 156; The Hercules, 51 Fed. Rep. 452; The John S. Darcy, 29 Fed. Rep. 644; The West Brooklyn, 45 Fed. Rep. 60. A steamer endeavoring to swing her stern, by a hawser, around the end of a pier so as to back up into her slip, is wholly at fault for a collision with a ferry-boat entering her slip by a proper course, where she fails to give proper attention to the latter, and allows her stem to be thrust into the entrance to the latter's slip, after the ferry-boat is entering her slip, and cannot avoid the collision: The Fulton, 62 Fed. Rep. 604. A small sternwheeler, after giving the usual preliminary signal, began to move slowly and carefully out from her slip, when her stern struck a steamer moving at a moderate rate, but within one hundred feet of the wharf. The stern-wheeler had no lookout at her stern. It was held that the steamer was in fault in going so near the pier and in not no

ticing the signal of the sternwheeler and avoiding her: McFarland v. Sleby &c. Lead Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 253.

37 Phillips V. Schlesinger, 127 Mass. 338. Where a canal-boat was landed by a tug against a pier at night in ordinary weather with such violence that the door of the cabin cupboard was burst open, and dishes thrown upon the floor, and afterwards two planks were found cracked and a third sprung off at one end, so that she had to be beached, it was held that the tug was liable for the loss of the cargo: The Victoria, 88 Fed. Rep. 524.

38 Thus, a steamship under steam is responsible for collision with the pier from her excessive sternway while being hauled out of a basin by a tug, occasioned by going full speed astern by her own propeller and under the orders of her own officers, instead of following the usual custom of using her engine merely to check excessive sternway; and the tug is not liable: The John A. Carnie, 49 Fed. Rep. 682.

So Ransdell Transp. Co. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 63 Fed. Rep. 845.

40 The State of Texas, 20 Fed. Rep. 254; The John T. Williams, 68 Fed. Rep. 938; The C. R. Stone, 49 Fed. Rep. 475.

42

ing the manœuvre should, on her part, proceed with caution,11 after proper signals, and use such reasonable dispatch that the movements of other vessels may not be unduly obstructed."

$6894. Navigation Around Bends in Rivers and Channels.—The general navigation rule that when two vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way, does not apply to vessels "coming around bends which may at times bring one vessel on the starboard side of the other." And the related requirement that, where one of the two ships upon crossing courses is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course, does not prevent a vessel along the winding channel of a river from following the curves of the river bank, and for that purpose shifting her helm.45 The descending vessel, as in other cases, 46 has the right of way, but is not entitled as a matter of right to occupy the full half of the river on the righthand side. Where navigation is undertaken around a curve by meeting vessels, the speed should be so reduced that the vessels are under complete control. A speed of fourteen miles an hour is regarded as excessive. Vessels nearing curves where view of approaching vessels is obscured are required by the Inspectors' Rules to sound signals; and these rules are literally construed.50 A descending vessel which

48

"The Charles E. Soper, 19 Fed. Rep. 844; The Drew, 25 Fed. Rep. 457; The John T. Williams, 68 Fed. Rep. 938; The Shady Side, 93 Fed. Rep. 507; The State of Texas, 20 Fed. Rep. 254. In clearing a slip in the East River for a steamship, tugs placed a barge and canal-boat outside of three other boats at the end of the pier below. The steamship was lying 400 feet off the ends of the piers, headed up stream, and, having decided not to dock at that time, swung around to go down the river, and in doing so struck the boats at the end of the pier, causing their injury. It was held that the tugs were not imputable with fault contributing to the injury, which was due solely to the fault of the steamship in negligently going about as she did, instead of moving ahead before turning: The Buenos Aires, 119 Fed. Rep. 493; The John A. Bouker, 119 Fed. Rep. 493. The New Pelton, [1891] Prob.

258.

The Servia, 30 Fed. Rep. 502; The Columbia, 29 Fed. Rep. 716.

47

"The L. C. Waldo, 100 Fed. Rep. 502; The Victory and The Plymothian, 168 U. S. 410; s. c. 42 L. ed. 519; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149.

45 The Pekin, [1897] A. C. 532; s. c. 77 L. T. Rep. 443; 66 L. J. P. C. (N. S.) 97; The City of Macon, 85 Fed. Rep. 236.

48 See ante, § 6889.

* Canfield v. The F. & P. M. No. 2, 44 Fed. Rep. 698; The Marshall, 12 Fed. Rep. 921; Miller v. The Argonaut, 37 Fed. Rep. 910; The Talabot, 15 Prob. Div. 194.

48 The Alicia A. Washburn, 19 Fed. Rep. 788; The John H. Dillon, 30 Fed. Rep. 285.

"The Virginia, 49 Fed. Rep. 84; The Charlotte, 51 Fed. Rep. 455.

50 The Michael Davitt, 28 Fed. Rep. 886; Roanoke &c. Co. v. The Lucy. 44 Fed. Rep. 938; The Transfer No. 8, 96 Fed. Rep. 253; rev'g s. c. 82 Fed. Rep. 478 (Inspectors' Rule No. 5 governing signals at bends applie to a steamer passing up the wes channel of the Harlem River on ap proaching Horn's Hook, though bound up the sound); The Zouave,

[ocr errors]

fails to give the signal on learning that a vessel is coming up the river into the bend, must stop until the latter has rounded the bend.51 Where both vessels have delayed signals, the ascending vessel should stop and permit the other to pass the bend first with a full swing around the bend.52 A sailing-vessel, becalmed while rounding a dangerous bend, is bound to make use of oars, or a small boat ahead, to keep some steerage way, in order to avoid collision with other vessels.55

53

$ 6895. Navigation of East River.-Under the laws of New York and the rules laid down by the admiralty courts in that jurisdiction, vessels are required to keep as near as possible to the middle of the river while passing up and down East River between the Battery and Blackwell's Island.54 The fact that a collision occurs while the law is being violated is prima facie, but not conclusive evidence of negligence. The violation of the law must be the proximate or direct cause of the collision.56 Where there is ample time and space and opportunity for navigation and for avoiding a collision, the fact that a vessel is navigating in close proximity to the piers, in violation of the statute which requires her to go as near midriver as may be, is regarded as a remote and not a proximate cause of a collision, and hence immaterial; but where such unlawful navigation creates an embarrassment in, or hinders the navigation of, other vessels, it will be held a proximate cause, and the vessel so navigating will be liable if such navigation results in collision.57 Vessels navigating this water

90 Fed. Rep. 440 (applied to tug ap-
proaching Brown's Point near Hell
Gate).

51 The F. & P. M. No. 2, 44 Fed.
Rep. 701.

Rep. 696; The Rockaway, 38 Fed.
Rep. 856; The Shady Side, 93 Fed.
Rep. 507; The W. H. Beaman, 45
Fed. Rep. 125; Minerly v. Union
Ferry Co., 56 Hun (N. Y.) 113; s. c.

52 Canfield v. The F. & P. M. No. 2, 29 N. Y. St. Rep. 960; 9 N. Y. Supp. 44 Fed. Rep. 698.

53 The Alicia A. Washburn, 19 Fed. Rep. 788.

New York Laws 1884, ch. 321. See The Amos C. Barstow, 66 Fed. Rep. 366; s. c. 13 C. C. A. 515; aff'g s. c. 50 Fed. Rep. 620; Brooklyn Ferry Co. v. United States, 122 Fed. Rep. 696; The Clara, 49 Fed. Rep. 765; The Doris Eckhoff, 32 Fed. Rep. 555; The Eider, 37 Fed. Rep. 903; The Emperor, 115 Fed. Rep. 447; The Hattie M. Spraker, 29 Fed. Rep. 457; The Henry U. Palmer, 93 Fed. Rep. 507; The Intrepid, 48 Fed. Rep. 327; The John H. Dillon, 30 Fed. Rep. 285; The New York, 122 Fed.

104.

55 Minerly v. Union Ferry Co., 56 Hun (N. Y.) 113; s. c. 29 N. Y. St. Rep. 960; 9 N. Y. Supp. 104.

56 The Clara, 55 Fed. Rep. 1021; Hudson River Cement Co. v. The Emperor, 46 Fed. Rep. 143; Long Island R. Co. v. Killien, 67 Fed. Rep. 365; McCaldin v. The Edgewater, 65 Fed. Rep. 527; The Monticello, 15 Fed. Rep. 474; The Titan, 44 Fed. Rep. 510.

57 The Columbia, 29 Fed. Rep. 716; The Eddie Garrison, 65 Fed. Rep. 253; The Volunteer, 49 Fed. Rep. 477.

must proceed under reduced speed,58 and with such control of movement that other vessels may not be embarrassed in their manœuvres.59

60

61

§ 6896. Navigation through Hell Gate.-Vessels coming through Hell Gate with the tide have the right of way; and vessels approaching from the opposite direction should wait until the vessel having the right of way has passed through, unless the descending boat has another available channel on the right-hand side. A sailing-vessel has the right of way through Hell Gate; and it is the duty of a steam-vessel approaching the sail-vessel to navigate with great caution; it being generally safer to wait until she has cleared.62 A steam-vessel may take the easterly channel in going to the west when her course through the middle and north channel is impeded by a schooner under sail, although a tug and tow are in such channel.63 Vessels approaching this passage must observe the Inspectors' Rules as to signals; and both vessels may be held in fault where a collision results from failure to give these signals. A steamer and a tug with tow, which have signalled each other that they will pass in

*The Henry W. Palmer, 93 Fed. Rep. 507; The Intrepid, 48 Fed. Rep. 327; The Portia, 64 Fed. Rep. 811; s. c. 12 C. C. A. 427; The Shady Side, 93 Fed. Rep. 507; The Transfer No. 8, 13 C. C. A. 684.

*Thus, it is the duty of a tug with a car-float in tow, on rounding in the East River just above the bridge to and her tow at a pier against a strong flood tide, to keep out of the way of a steamer which is near the end of a pier, on the tug's starboard side, keeping her propeller in motion just enough to keep her place for the accommodation of another vessel in docking, and also as the ng was the principal moving vessel: The Cyclops, 45 Fed. Rep. 122. A tug with tow coming down the Harlem River is at fault for collision with a tug going up the East River, in keeping too near (within two hundred feet of) the New York shore when rounding to cross the river off Horn's Hook, and in undertaking the dangerous mancuTre of stopping between two other tows, without previous agreement whistle, while having a long and heavy tow of her own, when she might have kept more to port at some inconvenience to herself, without either imperiling herself or the

64

other tow: The R. H. Waterman, 82 Fed. Rep. 478.

60

30 The Galatea, 3 Ben. (U. S.) 211; The Dasori, 47 Fed. Rep. 330. So, a boat bound through Hell Gate on a flood tide is not in fault for taking the east channel after giving one signal to a tow coming up through that channel: Union Ins. Co. v. The Bridgeport, 35 Fed. Rep. 222.

61 The City of Springfield, 26 Fed. Rep. 158.

62 The Island City, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 264; The City of Norfolk, 7 Ben. (U. S.) 350.

63 The Peerless, 48 Fed. Rep. 844.

64 The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. Rep. 98; The Josephine B., 45 Fed. Rep. 909. A steamer which, while coming westward through the easterly channel of Hell Gate, upon sighting a tug with tow alongside on her port hand with her green light exposed, very near the Astoria shore, gives two whistles and immediately changes her course under a mistaken assumption as to the destination of the tug, without awaiting an answer to her signal, is solely responsible for a collision between them, where the tug, as soon as apprised of the steamer's change of course, reverses and could not otherwise avoid collision: The Transfer No. 5, 49 Fed. Rep. 398.

the easterly channel of Hell Gate, are each bound to keep to the starboard side of the middle of that channel, passing port to port; and the one neglecting that precaution will be held responsible for a resulting collision, in the absence of fault on the part of the other."5 The Supervising Inspectors' Rules also provide that where two steamers approach Hell Gate side by side, the vessel on the starboard side has the right of way and the other must drop astern; and that vessels, once in the Gate and going in the same direction, must not pass each other."

67

§ 6897. Collisions with Rowboats.-The larger vessels are required to exercise due care to avoid collisions with rowboats,68 and there is a corresponding duty on the part of the occupants of rowboats to exercise reasonable care to avoid being run down by larger boats; and where the oarsman is inexperienced, he is guilty of negligence precluding a recovery for injuries caused by attempting to row across a river ahead of an approaching steamboat and tow.70 So, the occupant of a rowboat was imputable with contributory negligence in a case where three steamers, headed in the same direction at intervals of about a hundred yards, were ascending the swift and narrow part of the Ohio River, and he attempted to cross from shore to shore in a skiff between two of the steamers, and, his oars becoming unshipped by the swell of the leading steamer, his boat was overturned by the following one and he was drowned."1

§ 6898. Care in Navigation with Reference to Bridges. It is the duty of the officers of a vessel approaching a bridge to use reasonable

65 The Mary McWilliams, 47 Fed. Rep. 333; Union Ins. Co. v. The Bridgeport, 35 Fed. Rep. 222. A tug going up the East River and approaching Hell Gate by the eastern channel was not in fault for not crossing the bow of another tug coming down the river against a strong tide, and which was hugging the eastern shore, to hold her tows against the tendency of the tide to set them against the western shore, it being apparent that, if the former tug went to starboard, she would interfere with this manœuvre of the other, and create danger of collision: The Zouave, 90 Fed. Rep. 440.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Rep. 125. By an exchange of signals between two vessels passing through Hell Gate, one of which is astern of the other, the overtaken vessel must keep her course so far as she consistently can; and she has a right to keep in mid-channel so long as there is sufficient room for the other vessel to pass her on the side agreed upon: The Dentz, 29 Fed. Rep. 525.

Gilmore v. Ross, 72 Me. 194.

6 Fischer v. Camden &c. Co., 124 Pa. St. 154; s. c. 16 Atl. Rep. 634; 46 Phila. Leg. Int. 168; 19 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 385; 23 W. N. C. (Pa.) 224.

70 Sekerak v. Jutte, 153 Pa. St. 117: s. c. 25 Atl. Rep. 994; 32 W. N. C. (Pa.) 11; 23 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 370. See also, The Glendale, 81 Fed. Rep. 633; s. c. 42 U. S. App. 546; rev'g s. c. 77 Fed. Rep. 906.

"Brown v. French, 104 Pa. St. 604.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »