In re Moran for Limitation of Liability

E.D. New York

In re Moran for Limitation of Liability

53 F. 845, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130

DecidedDecember 24, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. 845 (In re Moran for Limitation of Liability) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.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 Moran for Limitation of Liability, 53 F. 845, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130 (E.D.N.Y. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The sad occurrence which caused the death of two pilots while in their yawl boat alongside the bark Methuselah, by being crushed bettveen that bark and the tug Moran, was the result of negligence. I find no negligence ou the part of the pilots; for while it is true that, if the yawl’s line had not been cast off from the hark, no injury would have been done, I do not think it was negligence on the part of the pilots to cast off their line when they did. The bark was moving. The proper thing- to do, as soon as the pilot they were taking stepped into the yawl, was to cast off the line. The yawl was in plain sight of the tugboat, and the pilots had a righ t to suppose that the tugboat would not come close enough to the bark to catch the yawl as it was drifting aft alongside the bark and touching the same. Neither do I think it was negligence on the part of the pilots to attempt to climb on the rail of the tugboat when they saw the tugboat upon them. All in the yawl were at that time in a state of alarm because of the dangerous approach of the tug. To attempt to climb over the rail of the tug- when the tug came upon the yawl was a rational thing to do under the circumstances, and [846]*846would have been attended with no danger whatever had not the tug kept moving on towards the bark, and thereby caught the phots, while upon the tug’s rail, between the tug and bark, so causing their death. It seems to me clear that the cause of the accident was the neglect of the man at the wheel of the tugboat to pay strict attention to what was before him, whereby he failed to see the position of the yawl until it was too late to stop his boat. Had he seen the position of the yawl when he ought to have seen it, he could have avoided the collision,- either by stopping the headway of his boat, or by starboarding his helm. When, at the last moment, he saw the danger, he did just the wrong thing. Such attention on the part of the pilot of the tug as the occasion called for would, in my opinion, have avoided the collision. Let a decree be entered declaring the petitioner liable to damages in the sum of f5,000.

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

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The sad occurrence which caused the death of two pilots while in their yawl boat alongside the bark Methuselah, by being crushed bettveen that bark and the tug Moran, was the result of negligence. I find no negligence ou the part of the pilots; for while it is true that, if the yawl’s line had not been cast off from the hark, no injury would have been done, I do not think it was negligence on the part of the pilots to cast off their line when they did. The bark was moving. The proper thing- to do, as soon as the pilot they were taking stepped into the yawl, was to cast off the line. The yawl was in plain sight of the tugboat, and the pilots had a righ t to suppose that the tugboat would not come close enough to the bark to catch the yawl as it was drifting aft alongside the bark and touching the same. Neither do I think it was negligence on the part of the pilots to attempt to climb on the rail of the tugboat when they saw the tugboat upon them. All in the yawl were at that time in a state of alarm because of the dangerous approach of the tug. To attempt to climb over the rail of the tug- when the tug came upon the yawl was a rational thing to do under the circumstances, and [846]*846would have been attended with no danger whatever had not the tug kept moving on towards the bark, and thereby caught the phots, while upon the tug’s rail, between the tug and bark, so causing their death. It seems to me clear that the cause of the accident was the neglect of the man at the wheel of the tugboat to pay strict attention to what was before him, whereby he failed to see the position of the yawl until it was too late to stop his boat. Had he seen the position of the yawl when he ought to have seen it, he could have avoided the collision,- either by stopping the headway of his boat, or by starboarding his helm. When, at the last moment, he saw the danger, he did just the wrong thing. Such attention on the part of the pilot of the tug as the occasion called for would, in my opinion, have avoided the collision. Let a decree be entered declaring the petitioner liable to damages in the sum of f5,000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. 845, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moran-for-limitation-of-liability-nyed-1892.