McGeeney v. Daniel McAllister Corp.

25 F. Supp. 1018, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1547
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 10, 1938
StatusPublished

This text of 25 F. Supp. 1018 (McGeeney v. Daniel McAllister Corp.) 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
McGeeney v. Daniel McAllister Corp., 25 F. Supp. 1018, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1547 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).

Opinion

LEIBELL, District Judge.

The owner of the deck scow “Clara McGeeney” filed a libel against the tug “McAllister Brothers”, of which the Daniel McAllister Corporation is the owner and claimant and against the tug “Transfer No. 11” of which the respondents, trustees of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company are the owners. Later the libel was amended to include certain appropriate allegations in respect to the reorganization proceedings involving the respondent railroad. On the trial of the action it was conceded .that the railroad tug was the Transfer No. 12 —not No. 11.

The claim of the libellant is for damages sustained by the scow, while it was in tow of the tug “McAllister Brothers”, in a collision between the scow and a car-float in tow of the “Transfer No. 12”. The collision occurred at 3:30 in the morning of October 25, 1936, in the East River near Hallet’s Point. The weather at the time of the collision was clear. There was little wind and what there was came from the starboard side of the McAllister tow. The tide was flood, about 2% hours gone, and was running thro'ugh Hell Gate at about 2 to 2% miles per hour. The McAllister and its tow had come up the East River on the westerly side of Blackwell’s Island and was bound eastward through Hell Gate for Riker’s Island and had a tow of three scows loaded with ashes for the dump at Riker’s Island. The .tow was made up with two scows in the head tier, the “Clara McGeeney” being the starboard scow and the “Raymond Cleary” the port scow. Astern of the “Clara McGeeney” was the scow “Margaret McCullough”. The tow was on two hawsers from the tug McAllister, of about 100 feet each, and was made up in the usual fashion.

The railroad tug, “Transfer No. 12”, was bound westward, from Oak Point near North Brothers Island, through Hell Gate and had two carfloats, lashed one on each side of the tug.

There is a sharp conflict in the testimony as to the whistles that were blown by the respective tugs and as to the place of collision. In the early part of the trial there was an issue as to whether the libellant scow “Clara McGeeney”, had lights properly posted, but before the case was half over this issue was eliminated. The captain of the “Transfer No. 12” admitted that he saw the McAllister tow and that the question of its lights had nothing to do with the collision.

There was proof that as a result of the collision the scow “Clara McGeeney” was damaged, so the issue to be decided is which of the respondents was at fault or whether both were at fault. I am of [1019]*1019the opinion that the fault lies with the tug McAllister Brothers and that the Transfer No. 12 was in no respect at fault and that therefore the libel should be sustained as to the tug McAllister Brothers and dismissed in respect to the Transfer No. 12.

The proper course to be followed in navigating through Hell Gate on a flood tide, between Ward’s Island and the Astoria shore, has been decided in two leading cases in this circuit. In the case of The Transfer No. 21, 2 Cir., 248 F. 459, 461, decided some twenty years ago, Judge Ward wrote: “This brings us to the question of the merits. The flood tide between Ward’s Island and the Astoria shore runs true; that is, straight down the channel, but with an eddy on the Astoria shore below Hallett’s Point. It was abundantly proved that vessels going west strike over from Negro Point to the Astoria side of the channel, so as to get the benefit of the eddy in rounding Hallett’s Point, while vessels going east keep to the middle of the channel and cross over to the Ward’s Island side, coming down near Negro Point, so as not to be carried by the tide onto Scaly Rocks. This is especially true of hawser tows. In other words, vessels meeting going east and west pass starboard to starboard on the flood tide at this point. This is what Transfer No. 21 did, blowing the required bend signal as she crossed over to the Astoria side, but keeping practically stationary about two. hours before the collision happened, because she was not able to round Hallett’s Point even in that weaker tide. This appears to us a reasonable custom of navigation arising from the peculiarities of this locality. In the case of The E. A. Packer, 58 F. 251, 7 C.C.A. 216, and the case of The Josephine B, 58 F. 813, 7 C.C.A. 495, relied upon by the appellants, the court held that there was no sufficient proof of custom.”

Recently, in the case of Tar & Fuel Transport Corporation v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 90 F.2d 437, Judge Learned Hand wrote: “The collision occurred just west of the Triborough Bridge in Hell Gate. The tide was flood, full strength, and there was much ice in the river. Both boats were navigating in accordance with the custom in Hell Gate on the flood, which we accepted as proper in The Transfer No. 21, 248 F. 459, and which requires a west bound vessel to leave the right hand side of the channel at Negro Point, to cross the tide and to make for Hallett’s Point, getting the benefit of an eddy which makes into Pot Cove. She must then cross the tide Again, and get back to the right side of the channel, about opposite the Astoria Ferry. Conversely, an east bound vessel must cross the tide to reach the left side of the channel between Mill Rock and Hallett’s Point, and make for Negro Point, which she must keep close aboard as she passes, for otherwise the tide coming in between Hog Back and Mill Rock and making strong towards the Astoria shore will carry her over on to the Scaly Rocks.”

In respect to the issue as to where the collision occurred, I find that the starboard bow corner of libellant’s scow came in contact with the port bow corner of carfloat No. 3 (the port side float of the Transfer No. 12) at a point about 275 feet off the steel pier and 600 feet east of Hallet’s Light, in the vicinity of the Astoria shore. This is the point of collision testified to by the witnesses called by the Transfer No. 12. The McAllister contended and produced witnesses to testify that the collision took place on the Ward’s Island side of the Hell Gate channel, between Ward’s Island and Astoria, at a point about 250 feet off Hog Back Light. The McAllister’s contention is not supported by the probabilities of the case. There was no reason why the Transfer No. 12 with her floats should voluntarily follow a course that would take her in the vicinity of Hog Back Light. Such a course would be contrary to the usual practice in navigating Hell Gate in a flood tide and would also compel the Transfer No. 12 with her floats to face the full force of the flood tide, right at the point where the current from the Harlem River passes to the northeast of Mill Rock and meets the tide coming up the East River on the Manhattan side as it swings east of Mill Rock on its way through Hell Gate. The McAllister’s attorneys, realizing the improbability of the Transfer’s captain voluntarily taking any such course near Mill Rock advance the theory that the Transfer No. 12 had been in the ebb eddy in Pot Cove and that as it came out towards the steel pier on the Astoria side, it was caught by the tide and carried over towards Hog .Back and into collision at that point. An examination of Exhibit D in this case, a chart of flood current observations in the East River, New York, Hell Gate, prepared by the Engineering Corps of the United States [1020]*1020Army, indicates no such current direction. If the Transfer No. 12 had been in the ebb eddy at Pot Cove, she would have had to cross the tide in order to get ovef to the point near Hog Back where the Mc-Allister contends the collision took place.

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

Related

Tar & Fuel Transport Corp. v. Palmer
90 F.2d 437 (Second Circuit, 1937)
The Transfer No. 21
248 F. 459 (Second Circuit, 1917)
Scully v. New Jersey Lighterage Co.
58 F. 251 (Second Circuit, 1893)
Woodberry v. The Josephine B.
58 F. 813 (Second Circuit, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F. Supp. 1018, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgeeney-v-daniel-mcallister-corp-nysd-1938.