The Toledo

136 F. 959, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 277
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 11, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 F. 959 (The Toledo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Toledo, 136 F. 959, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1905).

Opinion

ADAMS, District Judge.

This action was brought by the Fuel Oil Transit Company, the owner of the steamtug Captain Sam, and her officers and crew, and Philip R. Jones, the marine agent of [960]*960Guffey Oil Company, at Port Arthur, Texas, to recover a salvage compensation for services rendered to the steamship Toledo, and her cargo of crude petroleum, at Port Arthur, in subduing flames which broke out in her store room about 9 :15 o’clock P. M. on the 27th day of February, 1903.

It appears that the Toledo was a nearly new steel steamship 256 feet long over all, built at Toledo, Ohio, especialfy for the carriage of oil in bulk, for which purpose she had seven tanks, all of them forward of the engine room, which was in the after part of the ship. She also had a peak tank, situated in the forward part of the ship. In addition she had an after peak tank, in the stern of the ship, commonly used for fresh water. Over the forward peak tank were sailors’ quarters and above them the rooms of the 1st and 2nd mates. Aft of this part of the ship was a compartment which contained the pump room and a room for ship’s stores. A space 8 by 12 feet was partitioned off from the starboard after corner of the store room by open slat work to form a paint locker. It contained 2 wooden shelves, built against the coffer dam bulkhead. The compartment was reached from the main deck, through a companion way, which had a flight of steps running forward to the first deck. Another flight led from the first deck, under the first flight, to the pump room below.

Aft of the pump and store room compartment was a coffer dam 2 feet wide, running from the upper deck to the bottom of the ship, which separated Tank No. 1 from the pump room compartment and there were 5 more tanks, running back to another coffer dam, which separated No. 6 from No. 7, the latter being used for oil or coal, as might be desired. Another coffer dam separated No. 7 from the fire room.

Port Arthur was the outlet for the Texas oil fields, as well as other products of that state. Its deep water harbor was connected by an artificial canal with Sabine Pass, 8 miles distant. The latter communicated with the Gulf of Mexico by a natural water way. The basin at Port Arthur is lined with warehouses, grain elevators, lumber wharves, owned by various parties, and the oil wharves of the J. M. Guffey Petroleum Company. There were three of the latter but only one sufficiently completed at the time to be used for loading vessels.

The Toledo had come to Port Arthur in ballast, from Philadelphia, and on the 27th of February about 3:30 o’clock P. M. she was fully loaded with oil, by means of pipe lines. She had taken on board about the equivalent of 21,000 barrels of oil, which was put in tanks Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. As soon as' she was loaded, she was moved forward and moored to some spiles about 60 feet from the canal bank to enable the steamer J. M. Guffey to take her place and the latter, some 30 or 40 feet astern of the Toledo, commenced to load by means of the same lines. The oil steamer Catania was lying about 300 feet astern of the stern of the Guffey, waiting to take the latter’s place when she should be loaded. The Captain Sam, a wooden oil burning tug, 85 feet long, was lying moored on [961]*961the outside of the Guffey. The Captain Sam had been that day to Sabine Pass, returning about 8 o’clock P. M., with the libellant Jones on board and was under his orders.

About 9:15 o’clock P. M. a fire broke out in the store room of the Toledo, causing volumes of smoke to issue from the companion way and through the ventilators, leading to the pump room compartment. It subsequently appeared that the fire was in some canvas on the shelves in the paint locker. There were other articles of an inflammable nature in the store and pump room, subject to be consumed by the flames. The fire was principally caused by the burning of. the canvas mentioned. How it originated was apparently not known. It caused a dense smoke, with some flames, and was dangerous on account of the nature of the cargo.

An expert on this subject was examined for the libellants in court. In addition to being a scientific man, he had considerable practical experience with oil. He said, in substance, that petroleum will only ignite by contact with flames but it is constantly evaporating, giving off a combustible gas, which when mixed with air and ignited, is apt to explode with great violence. It will ignite in a temperature of 400 or 500 degrees Fahrenheit, without contact with flames. It is heavier than air and will settle to the bottom of any receptacle, driving out the air. When the tank is full, the gas will overflow on the deck of a steamer and run along and down any orifice left open and in a case like this, it was apt to run into the compartment where the fire was, with disastrous consequences to life and property. If the fire had not been promptly overcome, such a result might have occurred here and in such event the ship would have sunk, and the ignited oil have floated to other vessels, of which there were several in the harbor, and caused their destruction, as well as the warehouses and other property in the harbor-

The testimony of this witness has not been met by that of any other expert and seems to be reliable and credible. It is proved that there is generally some seepage, or leakage, of the oil and that the gas will readily penetrate through small openings, which are usually found about the rivets and other holes of iron fittings,, used to separate the compartments.

A disputed question in the case is, whether the coffer dam aft of the store room was empty or full. The libellants contend that it was empty at the time of the fire and the testimony shows that after the fire it had a rusty appearance inside. It was actually empty at 9 o’clock the next morning, but the claimant says that it had been pumped out at an earlier hour. I am rather disposed to believe that it was empty at the time of the fire. In any event, it was only three quarters full and this, according to the expert testimony, was almost equally dangerous with a completely empty tank because any oil finding its way there, would rise to the top of the water and generate gas, which would have been subject to explosion in the high temperature in the immediate vicinity of the fire. The expert further says, that the upper part of the coffer dam would become red [962]*962hot, meaning a temperature of 600 to 800 degrees. The danger of explosion existed, notwithstanding Tank No. 1 was apparently empty, by the gas flowing along the deck to the pump room companion way, and thus getting into the compartment, or by entrance through any defective rivet hole or other leaks that might have existed.

Another disputed question of fact arises out of opposing contentions with respect to securing an entrance to the pump room through the breaking of the glass port on the starboard side. _ It is claimed by the Toledo that her master entered a small boat, which was near the steamer, and broke the port with an oar. On the other hand, the tug claims that one of her men broke it with an axe and a 2 inch hose was immediately put in, which threw a stream on the fire and eventually subdued it. It is impossible to reconcile these diverse claims and it seems that the tug’s is more entitled to credence. I accordingly adopt her view in such respect.

The length of the service is also disputed. It was probably of an hour or an hour and a half’s duration, but the time is not of great importance. The effectiveness is the real matter to be determined.

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

Related

Hernandez v. Roberts
675 F. Supp. 1329 (S.D. Florida, 1988)
Allen
139 F. 888 (S.D. New York, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 F. 959, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-toledo-nysd-1905.