Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

77

care to avoid a collision with the structure." They are bound to keep the vessel under complete control, and move at such a rate of speed that the vessel may be easily stopped;73 and where for any reason the view is obstructed, it is the duty of the vessel to stop until the bridge can be approached with safety." Where a drawbridge is approached, timely signals should be given the bridge-tender;75 and where the signal is answered, the vessel may proceed on the presumption that the bridge will be open, though it develops that the bridgetender is unable to open the draw-bridge.76 The fact that space between the abutments does not comply with the statutory requirements will not support a recovery for injuries received in a collision with the abutments, unless such non-compliance was the proximate cause of the collision. So, a bridge company owning a drawbridge will not be liable for injury to a schooner colliding with it, although it is so defective in construction as to constitute an obstruction to the stream, where the collision is due to a sheer made by the schooner while in the draw, produced through a change in her wheel.78 Where the passage is obstructed by a raft, it is the duty of an approaching vessel to tow the obstruction out of the passage and not force its way through and break up the raft.79 In case there is but one passage under a drawbridge, it is the duty of a vessel meeting an approaching ressel after it has passed through the draw to heed signals to keep out of the way of such approaching vessel.so The owners of a drawbridge have been held liable for injuries to a vessel, free from fault, caused by colliding with stone deposited in the river in constructing a bridge, which obstructed the channel between the piers.81 But a vessel that is aware of the existence and position of submerged piling in a river cannot complain that the submerged obstruction was not buoyed, as required by the rules of navigation.82 In another case, a vessel-owner who had taken extraordinary precautions to prevent his

"The Jonty Jenks, 54 Fed. Rep. 1021; St. Louis &c. Co. v. Keokuk &c. Co. 31 Fed. Rep. 755 (highest degree of care not required); Cumberland Co. v. Central Wharf &c. Co., 90 Me. 95; s. c. 37 Atl. Rep. 867.

"The St. Nicholas, 49 Fed. Rep. 71; The T. W. Snook, 49 Fed. Rep. 686; Gilmour v. Bay of Quinte Bridge Co., 20 Ont. App. 281. "Memphis &c. Packet Co. v. Overman Carriage Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 246 smokestack down and pilot-house alled with smoke).

Williams v. The Whisper, 37 Fed. Rep. 495.

"Manistee Lumber Co. v. Chicago, 44 Fed. Rep. 87.

77 St. Louis &c. Packet Co. v. Keokuk &c. Bridge Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 755; Cumberland Co. V. Central Wharf &c. Co., 90 Me. 95; s. c. 37 Atl. Rep. 867.

78 The John C. Sweeney, 55 Fed. Rep. 536.

79 The Mary, 123 Fed. Rep. 609. So The Thomas P. Way, 30 Fed. Rep. 207.

$1 Maxon v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 122 Fed. Rep. 555.

82 The Modoc, 26 Fed. Rep. 718; Hosford v. Wakefield, 117 Fed. Rep. 945 (passage attempted at time of excessively high water).

boat from getting adrift, was held not liable for damage caused by the boat getting adrift and injuring the false-work of a bridge in course of construction some miles down the stream, of the presence of which he was ignorant.85

83

§ 6899. Collision with Gas-Main in River-Bed.-Where a steamtug had caught upon a gas-main negligently exposed in the bottom of the river, the waters of which were rapidly falling, endangering the safety of the vessel, and the pilot and others employed by the vessel apprehended no danger in the attempt to warp the vessel off the obstacle, it was held that they were not responsible for a mere mistake of judgment in making the attempt, whereby the pipe was fractured, causing the gas to escape, which ignited and caused serious personal injuries.84

85

§ 6900. Launching Vessels.-The law casts upon the persons in charge of the launching of a vessel the obligation of conducting the operation with the utmost precaution, and of giving such notice as is reasonable and sufficient to prevent any injury to passing vessels.8t They should have a tug in attendance decorated so as to indicate that a launching is imminent.86 Mere decoration of the vessel to be launched, or hoisting a flag at the place of launching, is insufficient.88

87

§ 6901. Vessels Breaking Loose from Ways.-Where a vessel, in process of being hauled up on ways for repairs, is so negligently handled and so insufficiently propped that she breaks loose and slides into the water, coming into collision with another vessel, the same maritime rules of law are applicable as in ordinary collision cases.8

89

§ 6902. Taking On Pilots.-On the exchange of signals for a pilot between a vessel and a pilot-boat, it is the duty of both vessels to coöperate in manœuvres required for the transfer of the pilot without un

McCauley v. Logan, 152 Pa. St. 202; s. c. 31 W. N. C. (Pa.) 437; 23 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 281; 25 Atl. Rep. 499.

Omslaer v. Philadelphia Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 354.

85 The Andalusian, 2 Prob. Div. 231; s. c. 46 L. J. Adm. 77; The Blenheim, 2 W. Rob. 421; The Vianna, Swabey 405; The Cachapool, 2 Prob. Div. 217; s. c. 46 L. T. 171; The United States, 12 L. T. 33.

[blocks in formation]

.90

necessary risk; and the vessel taking on the pilot must stop her headway in due season to the extent necessary to make a safe transfer;" but this rule will not justify the pilot-boat in assuming in the nighttime that a steamer has fully stopped at any particular point; and where, acting on such assumption, in turning she unnecessarily takes a course across the bows of the vessel, she is in fault for the collision; and the vessel is not in fault because, having stopped her engines in due time, she is still under a slight headway at the time of the collision.91

[blocks in formation]

6906. Subject to general rules of 6907. Entering and leaving slip. navigation.

1

§ 6906. Subject to General Rules of Navigation.-The navigation rules governing crossing vessels apply to ferry-boats, and become operative as soon as the boat has begun to move from her slip and has reached the outer end of her pier. A ferry-boat does not have an exclusive right of way, and must keep out of the way of sailingvessels. Having entered upon her voyage, she becomes subject to the

*The Alaska, 33 Fed. Rep. 106; The Ansgard, 123 Fed. Rep. 473; rev'g s. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 440; The City of Washington, 92 U. S. 31. A vessel at sea on pilot ground is subject to the usual rules of navigation as respects a pilot-boat whose signal offering services she has not answered, and whose services she does not desire; and she is not in fault for trying to keep away from a pilotboat, even though the latter be trying to hail her for the purpose of offering services; neither is she in fault for not seeing unexpected maneuvres of the pilot-boat that are not customary, or for failing to give answer to the pilot's flash-light offering to give services, as there is no rule or custom requiring such answer: The Cambusdoon, 30 Fed. Rep. 704. Where collision occurs between a schooner, while waiting for a pilot, and the pilot-boat, the latter is liable in damages, as it is the daty of the pilot-boat to keep out of the way of the waiting vessel: The Leo, 34 Fed. Rep. 140.

"The Ansgar, 123 Fed. Rep. 473; rev'g s. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 440.

The Breakwater, 155 U. S. 252; 8. c. 39 L. ed. 139; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99. A ferry-boat must not cross a

steamer's path when the steamer is abreast of her slip and hampered by the presence of other vessels. But if the ferry-boat starts out of her slip when her bow is astern of the steamer, and afterwards crosses the steamer's bows, she will be considered as a following and not a crossing vessel, and the rules as to a crossing vessel do not apply: The Venetian, 29 Fed. Rep. 460.

2

The Columbia, 92 Fed. Rep. 939; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 96; aff'g s. c. 92 Fed. Rep. 936; The Breakwater, 155 U. S. 252; s. c. 39 L. ed. 139; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99.

The Manhasset, 34 Fed. Rep. 408; s. c. 5 Hughes (U. S.) 104.

The Elizabeth, 114 Fed. Rep. 757; The Manhasset, 5 Hughes (U. S.) 104. A steam ferry-boat, crossing East River, stopped and headed up stream to allow the passage of three schooners which were coming down the river nearly abreast. When about 150 feet distant the outer one of the schooners sheered, and came into collision with the ferry-boat. After the sheer the steamer backed, but was unable to avoid the collision. It was held that the fault was solely that of the schooner, which had been left ample room to pass,

rule that a vessel having another vessel on her starboard side must keep out of the way of the latter," which, being the privileged vessel, must keep her course and speed. In the case of a crowded harbor, a ferry-boat must be kept under perfect control, so that she may be stopped in a space of twice her length. Other vessels passing up and down a harbor crossed by numerous vessels must keep as nearly as possible to the center of the stream, so that exit and entrance to ferry-slips may not be checked or embarrassed. A ferry-boat, even where it possesses the right of way, must take all reasonable precautions to avoid a collision with a vessel when the danger becomes apparent.”

8

§ 6907. Entering and Leaving Slip.-A ferry-boat has the right of way to the entrance of her slip,10 and the right to follow her usual course in rounding into the slip.11 By "course" of a ferry-boat is

but which sheered through negligent navigation, and when so close that the ferry-boat could not have prevented the collision: The W. S. Tompkins, 116 Fed. Rep. 59.

Case v. The Susquehanna, 35 Fed. Rep. 325; The Columbia, 92 Fed. Rep. 936; The Elizabeth, 116 Fed. Rep. 225; The Mohegan, 91 Fed. Rep. 810; The Pequot, 30 Fed. Rep. 839; The Rescue, 51 Fed. Rep. 927; The Transfer No. 4, 44 Fed. Rep. 303.

• Inland Waters and Harbors Rules, art. 22. See The Baltimore, 35 Fed. Rep. 613; The Breakwater, 155 U. S. 252; s. c. 39 L. ed. 139; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99. A ferry-boat was crossing the Hudson River to Albany on her usual course, which was slightly down the river, when a steamer with tows was coming up near the west side. The ferry-boat gave a signal of one whistle, indicating her intention to keep her course, which she had a right to do as the privileged vessel, and after stopping and receiving no answer she proceeded. The steamer neither saw the ferry-boat, although in plain sight, nor heard her signal, and kept her course until it was too late to avoid collision. It was held that the steamer was in fault for negligent navigation, and the violation of rule 2 of the Navigation Rules, which required her, having the ferry-boat on her own starboard side, to keep out of the way and direct her course to starboard; that the ferry-boat was not in fault, being the privileged

vessel, and required by the same rule to keep her course and speed: The C. J. Reno, 121 Fed. Rep. 149.

The Manhasset, 5 Hughes (U. S.) 104.

8

The John Darcy, 29 Fed. Rep. 644; The Breakwater, 155 U. S. 252; s. c. 39 L. ed. 139; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99.

The Alaska, 121 Fed. Rep. 741; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 23; aff'g s. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 564; The Baltimore, 34 Fed. Rep. 660 (pilot of ferry-boat failed to observe signals of other vessel and went on in face of danger of collision instead of reversing and stopping at the mouth of slip as he might have done); The Eider, 37 Fed. Rep. 903; Hamblin v. The Rockaway, 43 Fed. Rep. 544; aff'g s. c. 38 Fed. Rep. 856; In re Brooklyn Ferry Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 741; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 23; aff'g s. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 564; The Pavonia, 26 Fed. Rep. 106.

10 The Pavonia, 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 403; s. c. 26 Fed. Rep. 106. A ferryboat which, in crossing the Hudson River in a heavy fog, strikes the New York shore too far up stream, is at fault for a collision with another ferry-boat endeavoring to make her slip, in navigating so close to the ends of the piers as to embarrass the latter in her movements: The Princeton, 67 Fed. Rep. 557.

"The John S. Darcy, 29 Fed. Rep. 648; The C. H. Senff, 32 Fed. Rep. 237.

14

meant the course she is obliged from necessity to hold in order to effect an entrance into her slip, with all the changes and turns which that course necessarily involves.12 But a ferry-boat, though compelled to enter her slip in a particular way, is not absolved from the general rules of navigation thereby.13 A ferry-boat will be excused in not sooner discovering danger of collision with a vessel manœuvring at the entrance of her slip, where the vessel has sufficient time to go ahead, and, when discovery is made that it is impossible to avoid collision, more danger would be occasioned by reversing than by proceeding. A ferry-boat should not leave her slip when another vessel is immediately in her path in such a position as to invite a collision.15 Care must be exercised as to the impetus given the ferry-boat on leaving her slip; and a ferry-boat which starts out of her slip under such circumstances that she will be compelled to stop and slow when in front of other vessels going down the river, is at fault for a collision with a tug and tow coming down, as the tug cannot be chargeable with knowledge that the ferry-boat will be obliged to stop.16 But a ferry-boat is not in fault for leaving her slip when an approaching steamer is in sight, which will have the obligation to avoid her. It has been held a case of mutual fault, where a collision between a ferry-boat just leaving her slip and a steamship. was caused partly by the fault of the steamship in mistaking a whistle simultaneous with that of the ferry-boat for a responsive whistle, and partly by the fault of the ferry-boat in leaving her dock when it was her duty to keep out of the way, knowing the steamship. to be so near.18

"The John S. Darcy, 29 Fed. Rep. 688; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 88; 1 C. C. A. 648.

"Thus, where a ferry-boat on her regular trip across the North River came up after a propeller, also on her regular trip, and which was going along close to the piers, and the ferry-boat attempted to swing into ber berth, having exchanged signals with the propeller, and given a danger signal which the pilot of the propeller heard, but disregarded, and collision ensued, it was held that both vessels were in fault: the ferry-boat in attempting to swing in and cross the course of the propeller when she did, being the following ressel; and the propeller, for disregarding the danger signal and not stopping when there was sufficient

415. A ferry-boat was not at fault for entering her slip notwithstanding the presence of a tow of canalboats which had landed at the end of an adjoining pier, contrary to ordinance, in such manner that one of them encroached thirty feet upon the slip, leaving 112 feet space, especially where she was unable to perceive any obstruction until within 100 feet of the slip, and a worse collision would have ensued had she reversed: The South Brooklyn, 50 Fed. Rep. 588.

15 The Baltimore, 56 Fed. Rep. 127; Holland v. Brown, 35 Fed. Rep. 43. 16 The Eddie Garrison, 65 Fed. Rep. 253.

17 The Breakwater, 155 U. S. 252; time for her to do so: The Armi- s. c. 39 L. ed. 139; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep.

tage Brearley, 9 Ben. (U. S.) 108.

"The West Brooklyn, 49 Fed. Rep.

99.

18 The Nereus, 23 Fed. Rep. 448.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »