Moran v. The Hackensack

E.D. New York

Moran v. The Hackensack

32 F. 800, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedNovember 21, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 32 F. 800 (Moran v. The Hackensack) 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

Moran v. The Hackensack, 32 F. 800, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117 (E.D.N.Y. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

The testimony in this case has satisfied me that the cause of this collision was the approach of the Hackensack to the Du-mont ahead of her so near that, when the Dumont, in order to allow a vessel to pass, stopped her engine and reversed, the Hackensack had not time to avoid collision, although she promptly stopped her engine, and ported her wheel.

The proof is that the tide was strong flood, and that, as soon as the Dumont stopped and reversed her engine, the Hackensack stopped and hove her wheel hard a-port, but in spite of those efforts she ran into the Dumont. This shows the Hackensack to have been in dangerous proximity to the Dumont. To be so near the vessel ahead in that place was a fault, and the fault that caused the collision. There was no fault on the part of the Dumont. She made no stern-way but simply stopped and reversed her engine. When she did this she had the right to presume that in that place and tide no vessel would be so near her from behind as to strike .her stern without backward movement on her part.

Let the libelant have a decree, with a reference to ascertain the amount of the damage.

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

Benedict, J.

The testimony in this case has satisfied me that the cause of this collision was the approach of the Hackensack to the Du-mont ahead of her so near that, when the Dumont, in order to allow a vessel to pass, stopped her engine and reversed, the Hackensack had not time to avoid collision, although she promptly stopped her engine, and ported her wheel.

The proof is that the tide was strong flood, and that, as soon as the Dumont stopped and reversed her engine, the Hackensack stopped and hove her wheel hard a-port, but in spite of those efforts she ran into the Dumont. This shows the Hackensack to have been in dangerous proximity to the Dumont. To be so near the vessel ahead in that place was a fault, and the fault that caused the collision. There was no fault on the part of the Dumont. She made no stern-way but simply stopped and reversed her engine. When she did this she had the right to presume that in that place and tide no vessel would be so near her from behind as to strike .her stern without backward movement on her part.

Let the libelant have a decree, with a reference to ascertain the amount of the damage.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. 800, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moran-v-the-hackensack-nyed-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack