The J. S. Neil

8 F. 713, 3 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 177, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2404

• Court: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
• Decided: April 28, 1881
• Status: Published

Opinions

MoCbaey, C. J.

This is a case of collision, and the question is as to which party was in fault. It is a question mainly of fact, and I have neither the time nor the disposition to discuss at length the evidence. The steamer Hickory was, at the time of collision, proceeding up the Mississippi river, while the J. S. Neil was descending. They collided in the channel nearly opposite the foot of Goose island, about 30 miles above Cairo. It is conceded that, in due time, the pilot of the Hickory gave the usual signal to the Neil to keep to the larboard, which' was answered by a signal denoting assent. It was, therefore, the duty of the pilot of the Neil to keep as near as practicable to the island, that being to his larboard. This he did not do, for the collision occurred at least 100 yards, and probably much more than that, from the shore of the island. It is pretty evident, I think, from the testimony, that the pilot of the Neil, by backing his vessel upon a straight rudder, caused her bow to incline towards the center of the channel and thus to come into collision with the other vessel. But, whatever the reason may be, the fact is clear that the Neil was not as near to the island as she should have been, and was therefore in fault. Was the Hickory also in fault ? As to the width of the navigable channel at the place of collision, and as to the distance from the shore of the island to the place of collision, there is much uncertainty in the evidence. It is clear that the main channel runs near the island, but it is also clear that there was at that time good navigable water for a distance of nearly half a mile. The Hickory was bound to give the Neil plenty of room to pass along near the' shore of the island and to bear over towards the main shore for that purpose. I think it fair to say that if the Neil had fully one-half of the ordinary channel in which to pass down she was bound to keep within it. If she was seen further out in time for the pilot of the Hickory to have avoided this eollisibn by bearing still further over towards the main shore, then it was his duty to have done so. But if the pilot of the Hickory so directed his vessel that he believed he was giving the Neil plenty of room, and if but for the sudden turning of the bow of the latter across the channel she would have had plenty of room, then I think the fault was wholly with the Neil, and this latter seems to have been the fact. By some failure to manage the Neil successfully, while backing her for the purpose of bringing her near .the island, her bow was thrown suddenly outward, and being probably caught by the current she was placed in a position almost at right angles with the channel, and this at a moment too late for the Hickory to change her course and avoid the accident. The pilot of the Hickory had, with good reason, calculated that the bow of the Neil would be kept down stream, and it seems that, if this reasonable expectation had been realized, there would have been no collision.

In reaching this conclusion I give considerable weight to the finding of the board of arbitrators, composed of experts selected by * the parties themselves, who, by agreement of parties, heard the testimony and rendered their award in the court below. Their finding ought, at least, to be as persuasive as would have been a similar finding on the facts by the district court, or by a jury, if a jury had been allowed.

Decree of the district court affirmed.