In re Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Nav. Co.

7 F. Supp. 107, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1567
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 1934
StatusPublished

This text of 7 F. Supp. 107 (In re Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Nav. Co.) 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
In re Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Nav. Co., 7 F. Supp. 107, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1567 (S.D.N.Y. 1934).

Opinion

GODDARD, District Judge.

This proceeding was brought under the provisions of sections 4283 to 4285 of tha [108]*108Revised Statutes (46 USCA §§ 183-185), by the Liverpool, Brazal & River Plate Steam navigation Company, Limited, as owner of the steamship Swinburne, in which it prays for exoneration from or limitation of liability, arising out of the collision which occurred around 4 a. m. on May 7, 1928, between the United States Army dredge Navesink and the steamship Swinburne in the vicinity of quarantine anchorage, New York Harbor. The Navesink sank shortly after the contact and nineteen of her crew were drowned and other members of her crew sustained injuries. The damage to the Swinburne was comparatively light.

The Swinburne was a steamship 4,659 tons gross; 2i,883- tons net registered; 385-.5 'feet long; 52.2 feet beam; 27.2 feet depth of hold, with draft of 15.5 feet aft and 11 feet forward. The dredge Navesink was a vessel of 3,911 tons’ displacement; 290 feet long; with a breadth of 47 feet and depth of 28 feet.

On the early morning of May 7,1928, the steamship Swinburne arrived at quarantine, New York Harbor, bound from Para, Brazil, to Pier 8, Brooklyn, with a cargo consisting chiefly of nuts and rubber. She proceeded to anchor off quarantine, there to await inspection, riding to her port anchor with sixty fathoms of chain. Anchor lights were set and a watch was maintained consisting of the second officer on the bridge, and three able seamen, one of whom was stationed on the forecastle head, another aft, and a relief around the deck. There was a strong ebb tide of 3% to 4 knots an hour; the wind wasi N. N. E. force of about twenty miles an hour; The night was dark; weather overcast, but visibility good.

Off the quarantine station there is a “temporary quarantine anchorage” intended for vessels awaiting quarantine inspection. The established easterly limit of this “temporary anchorage” is defined by an imaginary line drawn through Craven Shoal Buoy and Robbins Reef Lighthouse and which runs in the general direction of north and 'south. O'n this Sunday in May, 1928, when many vessels were arriving at New York Harbor, the temporary anchorage ground was crowded with vessels waiting quarantine inspection on Monday morning.

At this time the government was carrying on dredging operations between 700' and 750 feet eastward of the “temporary anchorage grounds.” The dredging was along a line of three buoys, A, B, and C; A being the southerly end of the line, B in the middle, and C at the northerly end. The line of these operations was some 2,500 or more feet long and about parallel with the eastern boundary of the “temporary anchorage grounds.”

Shortly after midnight of May 7, the Navesink left Pier 3, Army Base, Brooklyn, and proceeded out to the dredging grounds marked by the three buoys. When she arrived at the dredging grounds those in charge of her saw the Swinburne at anchor to the westward of where the dredging was being done. The Navesink began dredging near Buoy A at the southerly end, working up to the northward to Buoy C, and rounding that buoy back again to Buoy A, and so on. The Navesink had made four northerly trips, rounded the northerly Buoy C, and proceeded on her fourth down trip, with an ebb tide running at 3% to 4 knots an hour and with a twenty mile N.N.E. wind, and having nearly a full load of dredging material. When, the dredge was in the vicinity of Buoy C, Sims, her mate who was in charge of her, testified that he saw the lights of the steamer Caronia a mile and a half or two miles away coming up through the Narrows bound for the quarantine anchorage, and he stopped her engines with the “drags” of the dredge resting on the bottom; that shortly afterwards he saw that the Caronia was swinging to the westward and he ordered the “drags” up; that the port “drag” came up, but that the starboard “drag-” stuck temporarily and this, with the set of the tide, caused the bow of the Navesink to pivot rapidly several points to the starboard; that as he was then on the working bridge he hastened forward to the pilot house 60 feet away where the engine telegraphs were located and where he had an unobstructed view forward; that when he arrived at the pilot house the sheer had increased and the dredg-e had lost her headway and her bow was being carried rapidly to the starboard with the tide, and he ordered the port engine and soon after that the starboard engine'full'speed astern, but the tide continued to carry hér sidewise down toward the Swinburne; when three to four hundred feet away from the Swinburne he began to blow danger whistles. (Before the Army Board of Inquiry held shortly after the collision, he ■testified that the Navesink was 206 feet away from the Swinburne when he blew the whistles.) A miriute .or less after the whistles had been blown, the . Navesink’s starboard side brought up against the Swinburne’s stem at an angle of about 90 degrees, cutting open, the side of the Navesink at a point variously estimated as being 45 feet to one-third of her length from her stem; (Her -length was 29Ó [109]*109feet.) The dredge then swung elear of the Swinburne’s bow and fell away down the port side and sank quickly off the port quarter of the Swinburne.

The only faults charged against the Swinburne which need be discussed arc/: (1) That she was anchored outside the temporary anchorage grounds and obstructed the navigation of the Navesink; (2) that the Swinburne failed to pay out her anchor chain when the danger of collision was or should have been appardnt. While the testimony of the mate of the Navesink placed the Swinburne’s anchored position outside and to the eastward of the temporary anchorage limits, the testimony that the Swinburne was anchored within the anchorage grounds is overwhelming and convincing. The location of the wreck is fixed beyond dispute at a point 700 feet inside the eastern boundary of the anchorage grounds, and the testimony as to the distance between the point where the collision occurred and the point where the Nave-sink sank is variously stated as 200 to 500 feet; the mate of the Navesink himself estimating it at 200 feet. Anchorage bearings were taken by the Swinburne and when laid down on the chart, it put her within the anchorage grounds. Only two bearings instead of the usual three were recorded, and so it is quite true that these might not accurately indicate her position, but these at least are corroborative when taken together with the testimony of her master who was familiar with the anchorage limits that he took certain bearings to satisfy himself and that she was to the westward of the boundary line. The testimony that she was outside is scant, and I find that the Swinburne was anchored within the limits of the temporary anchorage grounds, some 250 feet inside the easterly line, and with the set of the tide and wind at the time of the collision she was trailing in a southwesterly direction.

With respect to the other fault charged —that the Swinburne faded to pay out anchor chain when the danger of collision was or should have been apparent — from the facts as I find them, it appears that while the watch officer of the Swinburne was on the bridge he observed the Navesink about 500 feet away and that she was not proceeding as she had on her previous trips, but was apparently out of control and being carried rapidly down on the Swinburne, so he ran forward to the forecastle head to see what, if anything, could be done. This was about a minute before the collision. On his way to the forecastle head he heard danger whistles from the Navesink, and as he reached the top of the ladder at the forecastle head, the collision occurred.

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

Related

The Glendola
47 F.2d 206 (Second Circuit, 1931)
City of Macon
121 F. 686 (Second Circuit, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 F. Supp. 107, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-liverpool-brazil-river-plate-steam-nav-co-nysd-1934.