Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Magee

180 F. 277, 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMay 17, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. 277 (Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Magee) 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
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Magee, 180 F. 277, 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224 (E.D.N.Y. 1910).

Opinion

CHATFIEED, District Judge.

On the afternoon of June 11, 1908, the United States tug Powhatan left the New York Navy Yard, a short distance above the Brooklyn Bridge, and proceeded down the East River, with a barge called' the “Canister” in tow on her port side. After passing the Brooklyn Bridge, the Powhatan crossed over to the starboard side of the channel, and assumed a position outside of three other boats with tows headed in the same direction and proceeding at substantially the same speed, thus passing what is known as “Pier 5” in the East River about halfway between the Wall street ferry and the Battery, with these four craft abreast and so close together that none of them could proceed further to the starboard without collision. The inside boat was just off from the pier-heads, and the positions which they maintained were necessitated by the presence of a tow of canalboats .and also by the ferryboat of libelant, operated on a course from Jersey City to Brooklyn. This ferryboat was rounding the Battery, at a distance estimated by her own captain as 500 or 600 feet from the pierheads. At the time she was sighted by the boats above referred to, she was stopped on a course substantially, parallel to a taugent to the pierhead line off the Battery, and nearly opposite the slip used by the Staten Island ferry. She had previously brought her engines to a stop upon receiving a signal from a steamlighter which had come down the East River on the Brooklyn side, but was then rounding the Battery toward! the North River at a considerable rate of speed against the tide, and in such a position as to pass the ferryboat to starboarda two-whistle signal having been exchanged with the ferryboat.

Another factor in the situation was what is called the “Albany tow”; that is, a string of canalboats being made up opposite the Wall street ferry, in the East River, and headed toward Governor’s Island, but under just speed enough to counteract the flood tide which, there runs, up the East River.

The captain of the ferryboat testifies that the Albany tow was considerably below the Wall street ferry and was moving down the river. But in view of the object which this tow had in mind in maneuvering in that part of the river, and the testimony of the various witnesses upon other boats who are extremely positive in their statements, it would appear that the ferryboat could have safely crossed the bow of the tow and passed it to port after the lighter had gone on into the Hudson' river. The captain of the ferryboat testified that after lying still during the passage of the lighter, he gave the signal to the engines of the ferryboat for full speed ahead, and proceeded in a direction substantially across the East River toward the Brooklyn slip of the Wall street ferry and across the bow of the Albany tow, but [279]*279that he was compelled immediately to starboard his helm and pass to starboard of the Albany tow; that is, on the New York side of the river.

In this he is contradicted by the captains of the boats coming down along the shore, who all agree, so far as they saw the ferryboat’s course, that the ferryboat should! have proceeded straight ahead and to port of this tow. This tow, therefore, should have had no effect upon the movements of the ferryboat relative to that of the four craft coming down the river.

It appears from the evidence that the ferryboat in question was not the one usually used for this service, but was a much heavier and longer boat, and it can be assumed that it neither responded to the helm as quickly nor got under way as rapidly as the smaller boat, and it is very probable that this difference may have prevented the ferryboat from turning and passing safely through a space which would have been sufficient for the usual boat.

The ferryboat claims to have blown one whistle to the Powhatan. The Powhatan blew one whistle which the ferryboat understood, and all the various craft inside the Albany tow were in clear view of the ferryboat at the time of this exchange of signals. It further appears that neither the Powhatan nor any of the three boats between her and the pierhead was then able to move to starboard, and a reversal of the Powhatan’s engines, when it was seen that the ferryboat was not likely to get under way with sufficient quickness to avoid being carried by the tide to port and into the path of the Powhatan, was too late to prevent a collision between the forward port corner of the Canister, which was a square-nosed barge, and the paddle wheel guard upon the port side of the ferryboat. An abrupt turn on the ferryboat’s part under a starboard helm swung the ferryboat alongside of the Canister and caused the carrying away of the guard to the paddle-wheel house and certain injuries to the wheel and shaft; but by this movement further penetration into the ferryboat and more serious consequences were probably avoided.

The respondent was the pilot of the Powhatan, and has been sued! in personam for his own actions, inasmuch as he is shown by the testimony to have been entirely responsible for her movements.

It is contended on his behalf that the Powhatan at this time was entitled to at least one-half of the channel, under what is known as the “narrow channel rule” (chapter 4, art. 25, 30 Stat. 101 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2883]), which has been many times held applicable to general navigation in the actual narrow channels in the Bay of New York (The Sea King, 114 Fed. 535, 52 C. C. A. 349), but not to the North River or the Upper Bay (The Islander, 152 Fed. 385, 81 C. C. A. 511; The Bee, 138 Fed. 303, 70 C. C. A. 593).

If we are to consider the passage from the East River around the Battery into the North River as but one continuous strait or channel, strict enforcement of this rule would require a boat coming from the North River and turning around the Battery into the East River to keep some 1,200 or more feet from the New York shore; that is, to make the turn upon the Governor’s Island side of the channel. In [280]*280the same way it would be necessary for any boat passing through these waters to cross the other lines of traffic and go far oút of the way, with no gain from the standpoint of safety. The chart shows that the distance between the Battery and Governor’s Island is some 2,400 feet, with a minimum depth from shore to shore of 21 feet. The .Battery shoi;e is lined with ferry slips and piers, and the ferryboats coming in and out of these slips render navigation close to the pier-heads extremely dangerous, and at the same time cause great congestion when craft, attempting to pass in either direction, follow converging paths and are stopped by the crossing of so many ferryboats.

It is evident that an exact application of the narrow channel rule cannot be made. The place in question, while narrow, is but a crossing or connection between four channels of extremely different widths and forms.

But even if the narrow channel rule be not wholly applicable, it may still be respected by a boat passing directly around the Battery; that is, from the North River to the East River, or from the East River to the North River. In this regard, the Bay and Buttermilk Channel side of the passage can be eliminated, andl it is evident that a boat rounding the Battery within dangerous proximity of the pier-heads would not only be violating the rules laid down by the courts in such cases as have been referred to, but would be in an entirely indefensible position if .by its course it offered an obstruction to craft coming down the East River upon the proper or starboard side of that channel, which passes around the Battery upon the New York side.

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

Related

The Sea King
114 F. 535 (Second Circuit, 1902)
The Bee
138 F. 303 (Second Circuit, 1905)
The Islander
152 F. 385 (Second Circuit, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 F. 277, 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-r-co-v-magee-nyed-1910.