The Cygnus

142 F. 85, 73 C.C.A. 309, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4086
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 5, 1905
DocketNos. 19, 20
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 142 F. 85 (The Cygnus) 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
The Cygnus, 142 F. 85, 73 C.C.A. 309, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4086 (2d Cir. 1905).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The following excerpts from the opinion of the district judge sufficiently indicate the movements of the vessels:

“The Cygnus [bound up from Coney Island] passed the Statue of Liberty, proceeded directly up the North riyer, on the westerly side thereof, and made a turn to starboard in the neighborhood of the Central Railroad Ferry on the New Jersey shore, thereupon passed over a distance of at least 2,000 feet and collided almost at a right angle with the Dimock, which was about 200 feet off Iron Pier No. 1, which was the Cygnus’ immediate destination. The Dimock came down the East river and rounded into the North river at a distance of at least 600 feet off the Battery, gradually approached the New York shore, and proceeded towards her Pier No. 11 until the time of the collision.”

The Dimock was moving slowly, putting her engines “alternately ahead and backward * * * to regulate her motion for entering her slip at Pier 11, which she was approaching on the flood tide, and she was in motion when the collision happened.”

There is some conflict as to how many signals were sounded and at what precise points they were given. For the purposes of this appeal the narative of the captain of the Cygnus may be taken as correct. He says that when he first saw the Dimock he was about up to the anchorage buoy, which is about midway between Ellis Island and the Communipaw Ferry; at that time he had commenced to put his wheel to port and had turned nearly across the river, heading nearly for the New York shore. At that time he began to navigate with reference to the Dimock and had her then, and at all times afterwards, on his starboard hand. When he sighted the Dimock she was making her [87]*87turn around the Battery and had progressed so far in it that her bow was heading about for the Pennsylvania Ferry. That ferry lies a considerable distance above Communipaw, and if the Dimock were pointing in that direction she certainly could not have had the Cygnus on her starboard hand, unless the latter had passed so far along that the courses were no longer crossing “involving risk of collision.” The Cygnus recognized the Dimock, knew to what line she belonged, that her pier was No. 11, and that she would have to go in there and not to Jersey City. Beginning to navigate with the Dimock on her starboard hand, the Cygnus was the burdened vessel, and under the rule the Dimock was bound to maintain her course and speed. The Cygnus, as her captain says, sounded a two-whistle blast about as she turned towards the New York shore, soon after he heard one whistle from the Dimock. Thereupon he again blew a two-whistle blast, to which he again received a reply of one whistle. He heard no other whistles, though there is little doubt that the Dimock blew a third one. In the face of the two single blast signals which he did hear, indicating that the privileged vessel was going to navigate in compliance with the starboard-hand rule and to cross his bows, and although he saw that the Dimock had completed her turn and was going up along the New’ York, shore, the captain of the Cygnus nevertheless kept on until he had gone so far that, although he did at last stop and back, he could not check his boat in time to avoid collision. We concur with the district judge in the conclusion that “it is impossible to find any excuse for the Cygnus.”

The explanation of his navigation is found in the following quotation from his testimony:

“Q. Isn’t it the fact that under the rule, if she was on your starboard, hand and the courses were crossing, you having a vessel on your starboard hand must give way to her; isn’t that so? A. Not as I understand the rule; no, sir. Q. Do you understand because you blow two whistles that gives you a right to keep on and cross her bow? A. As I understand the inspector’s rules; yes, sir. Q. If you had heard her whistles first instead of your whistles first what would you have done? A. I would have stopped my boat. Q. You think that having blown two blasts and having gotten them in first that gave you a right to keep on across her bow? A. Yes, sir. Q. You understood it gave you the right of way? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you nagivated on that assumption? A. Yes, sir.”

Undoubtedly the unfortunate provision in the inspectors’ rules about “not crossing signals,” which — even before its formal enactment in the amendment of 1899 (where it is restricted to vessels meeting end on) — was generally accepted by pilots as what the board required, has within the experience of this court, been prolific of disaster. It operated to induce a belief among some pilots that by giving the first signal they could relieve themselves of the burden which the rules of navigation imposed upon them. But it is, indeed, surprising to find that, in this harbor, 11 years after the decision in The John King, 49 Fed. 469, 1 C. C. A. 319, and four years after the decision in The George S. Schultz, 84 Fed. 508, 28 C. C. A. 476, an excursion boat, carrying sometimes thousands of people, is intrusted to the command of a man who does not know that the starboard-hand rule requires him to keep out of the way of the privileged vessel («which is itself to [88]*88keep course and speed), unless both vessels have by timely interchange of signals affected an agreement to undertake to navigate otherwise than as the rule provides. The fault of the Cygnus was gross, and was undoubtedly the cause of the collision.

The only other question in the case is whether the Dimock was also in fault. She was entitled to come down the East river and turn into the North river, directing her course towards her own pier. She was-not bound, because at some time in her turning movement her head pointed tó Jersey City, to keep on in that direction, merely because she saw the Cygnus on the Jersey side and knew the latter was about to turn in for her pier. They were nearly the whole distance of the river apart, she was on the starboard hand of the Cygnus and therefore privileged, and it was perfectly easy and not even inconvenient for the Cygnus to keep out of her way. Had her pier been some distance up° the river, there might be force in the suggestion that she should have gone further out, but Pier 11 is so near the Battery that she was clearly justified in not making such a wide sweep, although in consequence she navigated nearer to the piers. She was not moving at an excessive speed, she repeatedly announced by signal blast just what her course would be; she obeyed the rule, and kept her course and speed. The district judge held her in fault solely because she did not stop and reverse. He says;

“If the mere omission of the Cygnus had been a failure to stop .earlier, it could without difficulty be determined that the Dimock should be relieved, for just when or where a paddle-wheel vessel shall stop to avoid another vessel is best known to her navigators, and depends upon conditions peculiar to herself, of which those on the opposite vessel can have no nice appreciation. But when to the continued progress is added a cross-signal and failure to respond to later signals [the privileged vessel is to be held in fault].”

It should be remembered, however, that the master of the Dimock had no means of knowing that the master of the Cygnus was ignorant of the provisions of the rule, and that he supposed the Cygnus to be privileged. The master of the Dimock could only judge of the situation from what he saw. There was nothing perilous in the Cygnus turning and heading for Pier 1. She was then on the other side of the river.

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

Related

Postal Steamship Corp. v. El Isleo
308 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Postal SS Corp. v. El Isleo
308 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court, 1940)
The Fulton
54 F.2d 467 (Second Circuit, 1931)
The Charles R. McCormick
15 F.2d 386 (D. Oregon, 1926)
The Norfolk
297 F. 251 (D. Maryland, 1924)
The Edwin Slick
286 F. 43 (Sixth Circuit, 1923)
The Orange
271 F. 458 (Second Circuit, 1921)
The Binghamton
271 F. 69 (Second Circuit, 1921)
The Musconetcong
255 F. 675 (Second Circuit, 1918)
The Southern
224 F. 210 (D. Maryland, 1915)
Grantz v. Luckenbach
219 F. 683 (Fourth Circuit, 1914)
The Senator Rice
215 F. 149 (E.D. New York, 1914)
The Pawnee
168 F. 371 (S.D. New York, 1909)
The Deveaux Powell
165 F. 634 (Second Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 F. 85, 73 C.C.A. 309, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-cygnus-ca2-1905.