Gould v. Boston & Philadelphia Steamship Co.

55 F. 426, 5 C.C.A. 171, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedApril 13, 1893
DocketNo. 15
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 F. 426 (Gould v. Boston & Philadelphia Steamship Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gould v. Boston & Philadelphia Steamship Co., 55 F. 426, 5 C.C.A. 171, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994 (1st Cir. 1893).

Opinion

WEBB, District Judge.

Attention to the positive statutory regulations for the prevention of collisions will dispose of the contention that the fog born used on board the schooner Florence complied with them:

“Article I. In the folloving rules, every steamship which is under sail, and i<oii under steam, is to be considered a sailing ship; and every steamship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considered a ship under steam.”

Having established this definition of the various kinds of vessels, the regula lions proceed to impose duties on each class for observance under various conditions and circumstances. For clear weather, and by daylight, the management of the ship is prescribed. Specific directions for lights at night are added. When, by day or by night, on account of “fog, mist, or falling snow,” neither vessels nor their lights can be» seen far, recourse .is had to sound signals. And as tlie Information conveyed by mere inarticulate sounds is, at best, imperfect and indefinite, it is important that the signals be arranged, so far as may be, to have definite significance. The means to accomplish this are diversity of in[428]*428struments producing the sounds, varying durations of signals, the frequency of repetition, and the number of distinct sounds to complete a signal.

A steamship must be equipped “with a steam whistle, or other efficient steam sound signal, so placed that the sound may not be intercepted by any’obstructions, and with an efficient fog horn, to be sounded by a bellows or other mechanical means, and also with an efficient bell. ”

It will soon be evident that these various sound-producing implements cannot be interchanged for convenience, or at caprice. Each has a specific use, and to that use it must be confined.

“A sailing ship shall be provided with a similar fog horn and bdl.”

When the vessel is under way, one appliance must be resorted to for making a sound signal, and this must not be the same for a' steamship when under sail, and when under steam. In the one case, slxe is to be considered a steamship, and must use her steam whistle or other steam sound signal. In the other, she is a sailing ship, and must announce her presence by the means appropriate to a sailing ship, namely, by a fog horn sounded by a bellows, or other mechanical means. A sailing ship, whether a steamer for the time being only under sail, or a vessel having only sails as her means of propulsion, must give her signals by a fog horn, - and is not permitted to make use of any steam whistle, or other steam sound signal reserved for the exclusive use of steamships. Both kinds of vessels, when not under way, shall make their signals by a bell.

Thus it is plain that the statute requires a steamer to be provided with three kinds of apparatus, because she is liable to be rated in three classes, — a steamship under way, a sailing ship under way, and a vessel not under way. The sound instruments of a sailing ship are for like reason reduced to two kinds; the two belonging to the two conditions in which she is liable to be,— under way, or not under way. As the statute is, it is not the province of the court to consider whether, practically, there is a distinguishable difference between the sound that is emitted by a steam sound signal, and that madé by a fog horn operated upon by a blast of atmospheric air. Neither have the owners or masters of vessels the right to disregard the requirement of the regulations prescribed by law, and to substitute one instrument or one signal for another.

“In a fog, all vessels must do all that is required of them by law or usage.” “Actual safety is dependent on a strict performance by each of all their respective duties.” The Eleanora, 17 Blatchf. 102. The schooner Florence was not provided with the means for giving sound signals prescribed by the act of congress, and for that was in fault. Her owners cannot be permitted to say she had something better*. Nor can it be held that this fault on the part of the schooner did not contribute, and could not have contributed, to the collision. All the witnesses from those aboard the Parthian, passengers and officers and crew, testify that the signal of the schooner was taken to be that of a ■steamship.

[429]*429¡Nor is tliis the only statute regulation, violated by the schooner, whereby the distinction between the sound signals of a steamship, and those of a sailing ship, was defeated. Rule 12 expressly

requires the steamship io make “prolonged blasts,” and the sailing ship to make “blasts."’ There is only one reasonable construe Lion of in.is rule, in regard to the length of the sounds to be produced,— one vessel must give long, and i,he other short, sounds, that their oliaracters may be distinguished. Of the witnesses on the part of ¡he schooner, Co.pt. Could, Mr. Buckler, the mate, and Doyle, who was at the wheel, testify that long blasts were made on their si ease fog horn. The mate says that at first he ordered the man tending the fog horn to Wow a long blast, and then, fearing the seamen would become excited, he took the lanyard himself, and blew long; bisrte. (’apt. .Crowell, second mate Crowell, Huston, the lookout, and lifoiue, a passenger from the Parthian, describe the schooner’s blasis as bug. Ho witness on either side describes them differently. This confirmed the opinion, based on the nature of the sounds, that a «teams'll ip was approaching, and in that belief the officers of the Parthian directed her movements.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the denial by the libelant’s witnesses, the preponderance of evidence is that once, at least, the schooner replied to the steamer’s indication that she would direct her com we to port with two short .blasts. This reply was misleading. 'and wiiliout míense. It meant either the approach of a vessel raider steaia, or of a sailing vessel on the port tack, when hi. fact it was given by a sailing vessel on her starboard tack. It did actually mislead, and influenced the action of the steamship. With ike conclusion oí the district judge* that fault on the part oí Die schooner contributed to the collision, we concur.

!h:t we can not agree with his opinion, that, “the disaster happened solely through Die fault ot those in charge of the Florence, in mak'ing fog sumáis by means of an instrument not sanctioned by the grimy rules.” The fog, though of short dural ion, was very dense virile It lasted. Mo one pretends that a vessel could be serai more ¡lian two or three leirbks of On; steamer. The Parthian had maintained her full speed, of about 13 knots, notwithstanding this short j.unge of vision, In this she violated filie 13jli sailing ride, which required a moderate speed, and she took all the risk of the consequences. While proceeding si ¡hat rate, she was advised by a sound signal of the proximity of another vessel under way. Whether it was a steamship or a sailing ship, the obligation of caution was thereby -cast upon her. The 18th sailing rule commanded her, “when approaching another ship no as to involve danger of collision, to slacken her speed, or to stop and reverse, if necessary.” Thai; danger of collision was involved, is clear from the statement of the captain of the Parthian:

“ I found that wo were coining together at an angle like that, — an obtuso Angle; and I knew, if we kept on that course, we should collide, — come across each other’s path, — surely.”

[430]

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

Related

Palmer v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co.
154 F. 683 (D. Massachusetts, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 F. 426, 5 C.C.A. 171, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-boston-philadelphia-steamship-co-ca1-1893.