Davin v. Hudson River Day Line

S.D. New York

Davin v. Hudson River Day Line

6 F. Supp. 691, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1050

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 13, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. Supp. 691 (Davin v. Hudson River Day Line) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davin v. Hudson River Day Line, 6 F. Supp. 691, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1050 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, District Judge.

On August 15, 1928, a tow of sixteen or eighteen canal boats in charge of the tug Joan Flannery was proceeding down the Hudson river. The steamer De Witt Clinton passed the tow at a point between Poughkeepsie and New Hamburg at about 2:39 p. m. Three separate libels were filed against the steamer by the owners of three boats in the tow. It is charged that the rate of speed of the De Witt Clinton while passing the tow was excessive, that the high swells thereby produced made the boats jump around and collide with one another, and that the De Witt Clinton is responsible for the resulting damage.

The only issue is one of fact, whether the speed of the De Witt Clinton on passing the tow was excessive. The witnesses for the libelants testified that the steamer, although warned by whistles from the tug, passed close to the canal boats without moderating her speed. The witnesses for the steamer, with their memories refreshed from the log, testified that the speed was slowed down for five minutes while in the neighborhood of the tow, in order to prevent damage from swells. Upon a balancing of the testimony and a consideration of the probabilities of the ease, I accept as true the version given by the latter group of witnesses and find that the De Witt Clinton did not pass the tow at a dangerous rate of speed.

The libels will accordingly be dismissed. The petitions bringing in other parties will also be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PATTERSON, District Judge.

On August 15, 1928, a tow of sixteen or eighteen canal boats in charge of the tug Joan Flannery was proceeding down the Hudson river. The steamer De Witt Clinton passed the tow at a point between Poughkeepsie and New Hamburg at about 2:39 p. m. Three separate libels were filed against the steamer by the owners of three boats in the tow. It is charged that the rate of speed of the De Witt Clinton while passing the tow was excessive, that the high swells thereby produced made the boats jump around and collide with one another, and that the De Witt Clinton is responsible for the resulting damage.

The only issue is one of fact, whether the speed of the De Witt Clinton on passing the tow was excessive. The witnesses for the libelants testified that the steamer, although warned by whistles from the tug, passed close to the canal boats without moderating her speed. The witnesses for the steamer, with their memories refreshed from the log, testified that the speed was slowed down for five minutes while in the neighborhood of the tow, in order to prevent damage from swells. Upon a balancing of the testimony and a consideration of the probabilities of the ease, I accept as true the version given by the latter group of witnesses and find that the De Witt Clinton did not pass the tow at a dangerous rate of speed.

The libels will accordingly be dismissed. The petitions bringing in other parties will also be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. Supp. 691, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davin-v-hudson-river-day-line-nysd-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack