The" Adriatic"

107 U.S. 512, 2 S. Ct. 355, 27 L. Ed. 497, 17 Otto 512, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1242
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 19, 1883
Docket169
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 107 U.S. 512 (The" Adriatic") is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The" Adriatic", 107 U.S. 512, 2 S. Ct. 355, 27 L. Ed. 497, 17 Otto 512, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1242 (1883).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Field

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court, with a finding of facts upon which it was rendered. We are, therefore, relieved of much of the embarrassment experienced on the trial, both by that court and the District Court, from the difficulty of determining from the e ~dence the exact position of the vessels immediately preceding the collision.. Here we must take the facts as found and apply the law to them. In cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, on the instance side of the court, under the act of Congress of Feb. 16, 1875, c. 77, the finding has the effect of a special verdict in an action at law.

There is, it is true, a bill of exceptions in the record, but it contains exceptions only to the finding, and to the refusal of the court to find otherwise. It presents no question for our consideration except such as arises upon the facts as found. There is no occasion in any case to except specially to a finding, as its sufficiency, in connection with the pleadings, to support the decree rendered, is always open to consideration on appeal.

*513 On tlie evening of Dec. 30,1875, the ship “ Harvest Queen,” an American vessel, sailed from the harbor of Queenstown, Ireland, for the port of Liverpool, England. She was 187 feet long, of 1,626 tons burden, and had at the time a cargo of grain on board. On the same day the steamer “ Adriatic,” a British vessel, left Liverpool for New York, and proceeded down the Irish Channel. She was 450 feet long, and of over 3,000 tons burden. Her forward deck was roofed with what is termed a turtle-back, so called from its shape. The spray of the sea dashed over this roof, and her lookouts were, therefore, stationed on a house just' abaft of it.

The wheel-house was on deck, and above and a little forward of it was the bridge, on which the officer on watch usually took his position. Adjoining the wheel-house, and opening into it, was the chart-room. At a quarter past two on the morning of December 31, the captain, who had been on duty all the time after leaving Liverpool, went into that room and lay down on a sofa, giving orders to be called at four, or sooner if any vessels came in sight. The first officer was then on watch, standing on the bridge, most of the time on the starboard side. Three seamen were on the lookout, one on each sidq of the house mentioned, and one on the port side of the bridge. At thirty-five minutes past two the first officer, looking through a night-glass, saw a green light about two points on his starboard bow. It could not be seen by the naked eye. It proved afterwards to be a light on the “ Harvest Queen.” At this time the sky was clear, with scattering clouds, but on the water the night was dark; the wind was blowing a fresh breeze from the southwest, and the sea was running high. The steamer was going about twelve knots an hour, having all her lights in their proper places and burning brightly. Soon after-wards the light on the “ Harvest Queen ” was seen by one of the lookouts, and two strokes were given to' the bell on the turtle-deck as a signal that a light was seen .on the starboard bow.

Four minutes after that — at thirty-nine minutes past two — the green light of the ship, which had broadened to three and a half points, changed to red. Up to this time the steamer had not altered her course. The character of the approaching *514 vessel was not known, nothing but her light being seen. But whether she was propelled by wind or steam, the steamer pursued the proper course to prevent the danger of collision. Her green light must have' been equally visible from the “ Harvest Queen; ” and when two vessels keep the same colored lights in view of each other, collision is impossible, for they are then moving on parallel lines. The lights on vessels are required to be so placed as not to be seen across their bows. The red light coming in sight indicated that the ship had changed her course, and was no longer running on a parallel line, but in a direction which, if continued, would bring her across the bow of the steamer. The first officer, therefore, at once gave an order to port the helm, and signalled the engineer to stand by the engine, following this with a further order to slow the engine. Both these orders were promptly obeyed, and the steamer slowly swung to the right.

•.As already stated, the steamer was going at the rate of twelve knots an hour. The “ Harvest Queen ” — judging from the time she occupied in passing over the distance from Queens-town — must have been sailing at the rate of eight knots an hour; that is, the two vessels were approaching each other at a speed equal to about twenty miles an hour. The light on the “ Harvest Queen ” could not have been seen that night further than two miles and a half; and over this distance the steamer with” her speed had passed four-fifths of a mile, and the “ Harvest Queen ” a little more than one-half of a mile. So that at this time, when the red light was seen, the vessels must.have been about a mile and a quarter apart. At the rate they were moving-they would come together or pass each other in four minutes. The first officer of the steamer at once perceived the necessity of an immediate change in her course so as to bring her on a parallel line with the approaching ship. Tobacco mplish this it was necessary to port the helm of the steamer, which was at once done. The order to do this was, under the circumstances,. the proper one to be given. The slowing of the speed of the steamer by reason of the proximity of the other vessel was also a proper proceeding. When a steamer is nearing another vessel, and there is danger of collision from continuing the rate of speed at which she is going, it is the duty of her captain to *515 slacken her speed, and, if necessary, to reverse her engines and move her backwards. Such is the express language of Rule 21 adopted by Congress for the prevention of collisions on the water, which is as follows: “ Every steam vessel, when approaching another vessel, so as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop and reverse; and every steam vessel shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate speed.” Rev. Stat., sect. 4288.

Had there been no other change in the course of the “ Harvest Queen,” the new direction taken by the steamer would have carried her past that vessel without collision. But about a minute afterwards, or forty minutes past two, the red light of the “ Harvest Queen ” changed again to green. The steamer had then yielded to her helm and gone off a point to the starboard, and was swinging further in that direction. The first officer, seeing the reappearance of the green light, at once garve an order to stop the engine, and, as soon as it could be dope, to back the steamer at full speed. This order was obeyed, and the engine was put in a reverse motion at about forty-one minutes past two.

The captain was then called, and immediately came on deck. Looking ahead he saw a green light not far away about two points off the starboard bow; then green and red lights appeared together, and then the red alone. He noticed also that the helm was to the port side and that the engine was under reversed action. ' Thereupon he gave the order from the deck, “ Hard-a-starboard,” which was obeyed. He then went on the bridge.

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

Related

State v. Cunningham, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2006)
2006 Ohio 5573 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Commonwealth v. Spencer
44 Va. Cir. 117 (Martinsville County Circuit Court, 1997)
The Virginia
25 F.2d 623 (Second Circuit, 1928)
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Barrett
190 F. 118 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)
The Europa
116 F. 696 (S.D. Alabama, 1902)
Pope v. United States
34 Ct. Cl. 361 (Court of Claims, 1899)
Hall v. The Alene
74 F. 268 (S.D. New York, 1896)
The E. A. Packer, Scully
140 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Andrews v. The Wydale
37 F. 716 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1889)
The Gazelle and Cargo
128 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court, 1888)
Cleugh v. The Britannia
34 F. 546 (S.D. New York, 1888)
The Smith
123 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1887)
Walker v. Dun
123 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1887)
The Adriatic
1 F. Cas. 194 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 U.S. 512, 2 S. Ct. 355, 27 L. Ed. 497, 17 Otto 512, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-adriatic-scotus-1883.