Haney v. Baltimore Steam Packet Company

64 U.S. 287, 16 L. Ed. 562, 23 How. 287, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 770

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: May 18, 1860
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants, owners of a schooner called the William K.. Perrin, charge in their libel that between nine and ten o’clock of the evening of 20th of Eebruary, 1858, ás the schooner, laden with oysters, was on her way down the Chesapeake bay, she was run into and sunk by the steamboat Louisiana; that it was a bright moonlight night, and the schooner, though of only forty-three tons burden and deeply laden,, could be and was seen at the distance of a mile.

The answer admits the collision and the result of it. It ad - mits, also, the schooner was seen at a distance of two or three milés; that the- steamer was proceeding at a rate of fourteen miles an hour, “heading due north,” and the schooner holding her course nearly due south. But it alleges as an excuse, that while the steamboat and schooner were meeting on parallel lines, the schooner suddenly- changed her course and. ran under the bows of the steamer.

This is the stereotyped excuse usually resorted to for the purpose of justifying a careless collision. It is always improbable, and generally false.

v There is not the usual conflict of testimony in this case; for the" single person on board of the steamer who was able to give any account of the collision, who acted as pilot, and by whose want of vigilance and skill the collision was caused, does not. materially contradict, but rather confirms, the testimony of the libellants. The facts of the case are as follows:

The steamer Louisiana, of eleven hundred tons burden and five hundred horse-power, was on her way coming up the wide bay of the Chesapeake, steering a due north course, between nine and ten o’clock at night. The small heavy-laden schooner is seen two* or three miles off, coming in an opposite direction. The captain of the steamer, (whose theory of action appears from his own testimony to be, that all small vessels are bound at their peril to get out of the way of a large .steamer carrying the United States mail,) although he had seen the'kchooner, and knew, that the vessels were approximating at the rate of over twenty miles an hour,'retires to his cabin. It was his watch and his duty to be on deck as officer of the deck. He leaves on deck one man, besides the colored man at the wheel, to act a? pilot, lookout, and officer of the deck. These two» persons'constituted the whole crew on duty, besides firemen and engineers. This person, who had to perform these treble functions, was the second mate. His theory is, that the best place for a lookout is in the pilot-house, where, he says, “ 1 generally lean out of the window, and have an unobstructed view." Accordingly, as pilot, he remained in the pilot-house to direct the steersman; and as lookout, he occasionally leaned out of the window.

The result shows the value of this theory with regard to the place and person proper for a lookout. The schooner kept on her course, as the rules of navigation required h<?r to do, on the presumption that the steamer would diverge from her 'course so as to leave a free berth to the schooner, as it was the duty of the pilot of the steamer to do. The boats were approximating at the rate of six hundred yards a minute, or one hundred yards in ten seconds. A slight turn of the wheel of the steamboat, if giveif in due season, would have left a wide berth for the schooner. But this, by his owu account, was neglected by this pilot and lookout till within ten seconds or less of a collision; and then the order was to starboard the helm, instead of porting it, in direct contravention of the rules of navigation.

.The steamer, it'is true, had a right to pass on either side, and it was her duty to keép clear and,give a wide berth to the sailing vessel; but having neglected this duty till the danger of a collision was so imminent that it was probable the schooner would be making some movement to avoid destruction, such a movement only increased the danger of a collision.

The man at the wheel of the schooner had his orders to keep steady on his course south. It is proved, without contradiction, that this order was strictly complied with till the pilot or steersman heard the noise of the steamer’s wheels; and being warned of her approach by the lookout, he looked under the boom, and discovered the steamer almost on him; when, in order to save his own life and the lives of the crew, he ported his helm and received the blow on the larboard side of the schooner, near the stern, instead of the bow. The point of collision confirms, beyond a doubt, this view of the case.

The hypothesis set forth in the answer to excuse this collision, that the boats were passing on parallel lines, three hundred yards apart, and that, when within one hundred or one hundred and fifty yards of passing each other, the schooner turned round and run herself under the bows of the steamer, is not only grossly improbable in itself, but contradicted by the testimony, and is a mathematical impossibility.

"With this pregnant example of the value of the theory of lookouts contended for in this case, let us compare it with the rules established by this court. Without .referring to the numerous cases, the correct doctrine on this subject will be found laid down by Mr. Justice Clifford in delivering the opinion of this court in Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How., 570:

“ Steamers navigating in the thoroughfares of commerce must have constant and vigilant lookouts stationed in proper .places on the vessel.” They'must “be persons of suitable experience, and actually and vigilantly employed on that duty.” “In general, elevated positions, such as the hurricane deck, are not so favorable situations as those more usually selected on .the forward deck, near the stem.” “Persons stationed on the forward deck are less likely to overlook small vessels deeply laden, and more readily ascertain their exact course and movement.”. '

The entire disregard of these rules of navigation by the . steamer, and the consequent destruction of property,- demon-1 strate their correctness and -utility.

In fine, we are of opinion that the- collision in this case, and destruction' of- the schooner Perrin, was caused wholly by t!ie negligence and inattention to their duties of the officers who navigated the Louisiana, and that the steamboat should be. condemned to pay the .whole damage incurred by the said collision.

Let the decree of the Circuit Court reversing the decree of the District Court' be reyersed.