Northrup v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

234 F. 264, 148 C.C.A. 166, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 1916
DocketNo. 241
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 F. 264 (Northrup v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Northrup v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 234 F. 264, 148 C.C.A. 166, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082 (2d Cir. 1916).

Opinion

ROGERS, Circuit Judge.

This suit arises out of a collision, and the libelant sues as the owner of the canal boat Senator Rice. The libelant brings the suit on his own behalf as owner, and on the behalf of the underwriters on the boat, against the steam tug Bern, owned by the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. The injury to the Senator Rice occurred while that boat was in tow of (he steam tugs Bern and Wyomissing, and resulted in the beaching of the boat. The injury resulted from a collision with a scow alongside of a dredge in the channel of the Kill von Kull. The owner of the Bern filed a petition, under the fifty-ninth rule in admiralty (29 Sup, Ct. xlvi), against the Morris & Cummings Dredging Company, alleging that that company was responsible for the injury to the Senator Rice.

On the night of January 7, 1914, the Senator Rice, loaded with 315 tons of coal, left Port Reading in tow, with other boats, of the steam tugs Bern and Wyomissing, bound for Thirty-Seventh street, East River, New York. The tow consisted of 15 boats, made up of 5 tiers of 3 each. The Senator Rice was in the fourth tier on the starboard [265]*265side. The Wyomissing was in charge of the tow, which it had on a hawser, and the tug Bern was assisting at the stern of the tow. The tow left on flood tide. The pilot knew that the dredge was there, and that the scow was next to the dredge. He had been past the dredge in the afternoon, and knew all about the situation. Moreover, he admitted that the dredge was lighted up at the time of the accident, and that he saw her and the scow. The tugs and tow proceeded on their way until in the vicinity of Elizabethport, about 2:15 a. m„ when the steam tug Bern dropped back to take out of the tow the boat which was directly astern of the Senator Rice. The Bern made fast on her port side to the starboard side of the coal boat and started to back away before all the lines were cast off between the boats she had in tow and the one next to her. When the tug started tO' back, the last tier of the tow was thrown out of position, and the Senator Rice was shoved into a dredge which was lying about in the middle of the stream, breaking the stem and three timbers of the Senator Rice.

The libel charges that the collision was caused through the fault and negligence of the Bern and those in charge of that tug, in the following particulars: (1) In attempting to remove the boat from the tow be • fore all the lines from said boat to the tow had been cast off. (2) In causing the Senator Rice to. come in contact with a dredge which was at anchor. (3) In failing to give signals to the Wyomissing to stop. (4) In not preventing the Senator Rice from coming in contact with the. dredge. The libel denies that the collision was caused by the Senator Rice, or those in charge of that boat.

The answer states that the tow was handled with the utmost care and with adequate help; that it was not causéd or contributed to by any negligence on the part of the claimant, but was caused or contributed to by the negligence of said dredge or owners in unlawfully obstructing the channel. The answer of the Dredging Company states that it was engaged in the work of widening and deepening the channel of Staten Island Sound, between Elizabethport and the Baltimore & Ohio bridge, under a contract with the United States government, and it was duly permitted under its contract, and by authorization of the proper government engineer, to work by night as well as by day; that in doing such work it necessarily placed its dredge in the channel of the stream and worked with scows to receive the dredged material, and that it did so with as little interference with navigation as possible; that on the night of January 7, 1914, its dredge was brilliantly illuminated and had in position so-called passing lights, indicating on which side of the dredge a moving vessel should pass; that its dredge was not working in the middle of the channel, and there was always abundant room for a properly made-up tow to pass in safety between the dredge and the shore; that if a collision resulted, as alleged in the petition, it was solely due to fault and negligence on the part of the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, its agents and servants, and was in no way due to fault on the part of the respondent.

The dredge was engaged under the supervision of the government in dredging the waters of the Kill von Kull at a point where a channel 400 feet wide had to be deepened. The channel between the dredge [266]*266and the .New Jersey shore was 450 feet; and between the side of the scow next to the dredge and receiving the dredged material and the shore it was 415 feet. The contract between the Dredging Company and the government expressly requires the contractor to conduct the work in such a manner as to obstruct navigation as little as possible, and in case the contractor’s plant so obstructs the channel as to impede the passage of vessels, it must promptly be so moved as to afford a practicable passage on the approach of any vessel.

It is impossible to have a dredge in the Arthur Kill without to a certain extent obstructing the channel. We cannot, however, hold that the channel was so obstructed in this instance as to impede the passage of this tow. All that the contract and the law requires is that there should be afforded a practicable passage for the tow. A 400-foot channel for a 75-foot tow'is certainly no such obstruction as'would render the dredge liable on the ground that it obstructed navigation within the meaning of the law. The injury which occurred could not have happened if those in charge of the tow had not approached so near the dredge. But, even as it was, the accident would not have happened if it had not been for an order that was given to which reference is hereinafter made. It is perfectly evident to us that those in charge of the tow, not only'had the necessary channel, but that they were well aware that there was no necessity for, withdrawing the dredge, and that they did not ask to have it withdrawn.

The government inspector was on the upper deck of the dredge when the accident occurred and saw the collision. He testified that all the lights were showing on the dredge and that on the approach of the tow he heard no danger blasts. This was confirmatory of the master, of the dredge who heard no alarm from the tug.

The reason for this collision is not involved in the slightest uncertainty. That reason was the premature throwing off of the lines between the Wayne and the Senator Rice while the flotilla was passing the dredge. The Senator Rice was the starboard boat in the fourth tier, and the Wayne was directly behind her in the fifth tier. It appears that it had been planned to take the Wayne out of the tow at a point somewhat further up the Kills. The master of the Senator Rice testified that he had been informed of this plan when starting from Port Reading. Some time before reaching the dredge he received whistles either from his tug, the Wyomissing, or the helper, the Bern, which he construed as a signal to throw off the lines between the two barges. The result of the throwing off of the lines was that the Senator Rice did not keep its alignment in the tow. In no other way is it to be accounted for that the starboard boats in the first three tiers cleared the scow.

The testimony of the master of the Senator Rice is as follows :

“Q. Where were yon on your boat at the time of this collision? A. I was walking to the bow about half way through her. Q. Just go on and tell us what you saw. A. What I saw, X was walking to the stern letting go of the lines on the other boat. Q.

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

Related

The Bern
255 F. 325 (Second Circuit, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 F. 264, 148 C.C.A. 166, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrup-v-philadelphia-r-ry-co-ca2-1916.