The Sabine Sun

21 F.2d 121, 1927 A.M.C. 1871, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1337
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 14, 1927
DocketNo. 41
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 21 F.2d 121 (The Sabine Sun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Sabine Sun, 21 F.2d 121, 1927 A.M.C. 1871, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1337 (E.D. Pa. 1927).

Opinion

THOMPSON, District Judge,

This case was heard upon libel and answer and cross-libel, and arose out of ,a collision in the Delaware river on March 27, 1925, between the steamship Lady Brenda, owned by the Dawson Line, Limited, a British corporation, and under charter to the Munson Steamship Line, and the Sabine Sun, owned by the Sun Oil Company. Lady Brenda was bound from a port in Cuba with a cargo of centrifugal sugar on a voyage to Philadelphia. She is a British-built steel screw steamship of 3,167 gross tons, about 325 feet long, 48 feet beam, and 22.2 feet deep. The Sabine Sun is an American-built steel screw tank steamship of 6,728 gross tons, 429 feet long, 59 feet beam, 31.4 feet deep.

At the time of the collision, the Sabine Sun was bound light from Philadelphia to Sabine Pass, Tex. The collision occurred at a point approximately a mile above Fourteen-Foot Bank light, shortly after 6 p. m. During the late afternoon there had been intermittent fog upon the river, but it had cleared somewhat, and the lookout upon each vessel had observed the other vessel when from three-quarters of a mile to a mile apart. There is considerable discrepancy in the testimony as to some of the facts in the ease, but the pertinent facts are not difficult of determination. The Lady Brenda had taken on a pilot at a point- somewhere between Over-falls Light vessel and Cape Henlopen. After taking on the pilot and while passing Brown Shoal buoy No. 7, according to the navigating officers of the Lady Brenda, her course was set at north by west, magnetic, which was held without change until just before the collision. According to her pilot, the course set while passing buoy No. 7 was north by west one-half west, magnetic, which was kept until buoy No. 10, south of Fourteen-Foot Bank light, was passed 1,000 feet on the starboard side, and then changed to north by west, and she was on that course when the Sabine Sun was sighted. There was a strong ebb tide and, because of the fog, the Lady Brenda was proceeding slowly at about two knots over the ground.

The Sabine Sun was taking the usual course for outgoing steamships down the river, when the Lady Brenda was sighted; her course being about south by east one-half east. When the Sabine Sun was seen by those on the Lady Brenda, she was on the Lady Brenda’s port bow and showing her starboard side. The Lady Brenda was well over on the west side of the channel, as shown by her course marked on the chart in evidence, while the Sabine Sun was in about the same position further upstream.

In this situation, if the pilot rules had been observed, the facts incident to the collision show that they could have passed each other in safety. It was testified to by all the witnesses examined on that point that, under the orders of the pilot on'the Lady Brenda, she gave two short blasts of her whistle to indicate her intention of passing starboard to starboard. The witnesses on behalf of the Sabine Sun are equally unanimous in testifying that they heard but one blast from the Lady Brenda, and were thus led to suppose it was intended to pass port to port. At all events, the Sabine Sun replied with one blast. This would seem to indicate that the Sabine Sun failed to hear the two-blast signal. Otherwise, in the ordinary course of navigation, unless flagrantly violating rule II, she would not have answered two whistles with one. Upon giving her first signal, the Lady Brenda started her engines full speed ahead, and, after hearing the single whistle from the Sabine Sun, replied with two whistles and kept her speed. The Sabine Sun replied again with one whistle.

After carefully weighing the evidence, I can find no- reason to doubt the veracity of the witnesses for the Sabine Sun, and therefore find as a fact in the ease that the first signal of the Lady Brenda was heard on the Sabine Sun as but one blast of the whistle. The Sabine Sun, having heard but one whistle and replied with one, immediately put her helm hard aport, throwing her to starboard, and then, hearing the second signal, of the Lady Brenda, the master ordered the wheel [123]*123put to starboard; but tbe wheel had become jammed, so that the helmsman could not obey the command, and the Sabine Sun continued on her port wheel to starboard.

It was testified by the witnesses for the Sabine Sun that, when they sighted the Lady Brenda, she was practically dead ahead. The witnesses on the Lady Brenda testified that the starboard side of the Sabine Sun was visible, and that the Sabine Sun was apparently in a position where, if she maintained her course, she would cross the bow of the Lady Brenda unless she changed her course to starboard.

Under rule IV, if they were approaching each other head and head (that is, end on, or nearly so), it was the duty of each to pass on the port side of the other, and in that event the Lady Brenda, having given the first signal, should have given one short and (jistinet blast of her whistle, and the Sabine Sun should have answered promptly by a similar blast of her whistle, and thereupon the vessels should pass on the port side of each other. But, if the courses of the two vessels were so far on the starboard side of each other as not to be considered as meeting head and bead, the Lady Brenda should have given two short and distinct blasts, which the Sabine Sun should have answered promptly by two similar blasts of her whistle, and they should pass on the starboard side of each other.

Inasmuch as the testimony shows that the Sabine Sun appeared on the port bow of the Lady Brenda, it should have been apparent to the pilot and navigating officers that the situation did not come within the latter clause of rule IV, which would justify the signaling by two whistles, and therefore rule VII applied to the situation. That rule is as follows:

“When two steam vessels are approaching each other at right angles or obliquely so as to involve risk of collision, other than when one steam vessel is overtaking another, the steam vessel which has the other on her own port side shall hold her course and speed; and the steam vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other by directing her course to starboard so as to cross the stern of the other steam vessel, or, if necessary to do so, slacken her speed or stop or reverse.
“If from any cause the conditions covered by this situation are such as to prevent immediate compliance with each other’s signals, the misunderstanding or objection shall be at once made apparent by blowing the danger signal and both steam vessels shall be stopped and backed if necessary, until signals for passing with safety are made and understood.”

Under that rule, the Lady Brenda, as shown by her own witnesses, had the Sabine Sun on her port side, and it was her duty, therefore, to hold her course and speed. While the action of the pilot shows that he might be said to have held his course, he obviously did not obey the rule in regard to holding his speed, for immediately upon giving the signal the engines of the Lady Brenda were started full speed ahead.

It being apparent that the two-whistle signal was not understood, the navigator of the Lady Brenda should, upon hearing the one answering blast, have immediately stopped her engines and backed. Both vessels did stop their engines, and backed and dropped anchor, when it was too late to prevent the collision.

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

Related

Sargent Line Corp. v. Tug Pottsville
212 F. Supp. 360 (S.D. New York, 1963)
Moran Towing & Transp. Co. v. United States
80 F. Supp. 623 (S.D. New York, 1948)
Kieckhefer Container Co. v. Minerva
58 F. Supp. 884 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1945)
Southern Pac. Co. v. United States
7 F. Supp. 473 (E.D. New York, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F.2d 121, 1927 A.M.C. 1871, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-sabine-sun-paed-1927.