Wineman v. Drake

154 F. 933, 83 C.C.A. 505, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4603
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedApril 16, 1907
DocketNo. 1,301
StatusPublished

This text of 154 F. 933 (Wineman v. Drake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wineman v. Drake, 154 F. 933, 83 C.C.A. 505, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4603 (7th Cir. 1907).

Opinion

KOHESAAT, Circuit Judge.

On August 7, 1904, at 9 o’clock p. m., the steamer City of Berlin (hereinafter termed the Berlin) and the steamer Chili came into collision in the Detroit river, just below the turn from the Windmill Point ranges to the course leading to the 800-foot channel in Ealce St. Clair. The night was dark but clear, with a light wind. The Berlin, a wooden steamer 298 feet in length and 40 foot beam, bound down the river with 3,000 tons of ore, and towing with a 650-foot line the barge Aurora, also ore laden, while yet above the turn, sighted the steamer Venus coming up the river with her tow, the barge Tyrone, approximately 600 feet behind her. To the stern of the Tyrone, and overhauling her at the rate of 1 ½ miles an hour, came the steel steamer Chili, 330 feet long and 43 foot beam, also bound up the river, with about 4,000 tons of coal.

At a distance of a mile apart the Berlin and Venus éxchanged signals indicating a mutual intention of passing port to port. Shortly aft-erwards the Berlin and Chili exchanged like signals. The Berlin and Venus approached and passed the turn together. There is some dispute on the record as to the distance apart these vessels were at the time; but we deem it sufficiently proven that the distance was about 300 feet. As the Berlin made the turn into the Windmill Point ranges —being a turn of two points — and when her amidships was about abreast the stern of the Venus, she for the first time discovered the Chili close to the port quarter of the Tyrone, and, as her crew claims, coming out from behind the Tyrone into the course of the Berlin, which it is claimed had straightened out practically 300 feet from and parallel with the course of the Tyrone, heading a little to the westward of and away from the ranges. The Berlin thereupon blew an alarm whistle and proceeded to check her headway, port hard her helm and back. Just what action was taken on board the Chili is in dispute. The two were, however, so well under headway that a collision took place, the Chili’s port anchor coming into contact with the Berlin’s port bow about 30 feet back of her stem, at an angle of 3 points or about 33 degrees, and remaining in the hole made thereby. The Chili then struck the port side of the Berlin a second time with her stem about 19 feet back of the first place of impact, and tore out an opening 33 feet in length by 8 feet in width. The wale streak of the Chili also raked the Berlin’s side past her amidships, doing considerable damage. The place of collision was about abreast of the port quarter of the [935]*935Tyrone. The Berlin proceeded downstream a short distance, and was beached on Belle Isle in a sinking condition. The injury to the Chili was slight, so that she was able to continue her voyage to Milwaukee, where, on August 16, 1901 — nine days after the collision — her owners filed their petition in said District Court to limit their liability, and took the steps to that end by the statute provided. On February 10, 1905, appellant filed his claim in said cause for damages growing ou1 of said collision. To this, petitioners made answer. The cause then proceeded to trial, and a decree was entered for the petitioner against appellant, from which decree this appeal is prosecuted. The only errors relied upon which need be considered are: (1) That the court erred in not finding that the Chili wrongfully came out into the course of the Berlin; and (2) that the court found that the Berlin overswung into the course of the Chili; and (3) that the court erred in not finding in favor of the Berlin. ,

As above stated, it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, while making the turn, the Berlin and Venus were approximately 200 feet apart, and that the turn was made in the usual way. The general course of the Berlin lay substantially parallel to and about 175 to 200 feet distant from that of the Venus and her tow, the Tyrone. , The officers and crews of the Berlin, the Aurora, and the Venus — in all 13 witnesses — say the Berlin straightened out after the turn was made and pursued her course down the river, heading on Belle Isle Point, which would make it about parallel with and 200 feet from the course of the Tyrone. Some of them say she was bearing a little to the westward of that course. The captain of the Tyrone says she straightened out after making the turn and held her course down the river. The lookout of the Tyrone says the Berlin at no time came nearer to the Tyrone than about 150 feet. The testimony of the captain and engineer of the Tyrone and of the officers and crew of the Chili — six witnesses in all — is to the effect that the Berlin came in on the Chili’s course so that the place of collision was only from 50 to 75 feet westward of the Tyrone. The fact that the Berlin was struck in her port bow is accounted for upon the theory that when she had overswung from the turn into the Chili’s course she attempted to go hard to starboard and thereby recover her course, and was struck by the Chili just as she was in the act of going out to starboard. To do this, she must have made her course from the time she crossed the ranges, in the form of a prostrate letter C^O. It is conceded that when the alarm whistle was blown by her the Chili was distant from her about 900 feet, and that the collision took place within 45 seconds thereafter. If the explanation be correct, she must have overswung 150 to 175 feet and then have recovered sufficiently to have headed out again at an angle of not less than 90 degrees from her overswung course in a little over half a minute. Furthermore, she must have approached so close to the Tyrone before she went about that the officers of the latter would have been justified in apprehending a collision. The evidence shows they had no such fear. From the exhibits and other evidence produced on the hearing, it appears that the Chili struck the Berlin's bow at an angle of approximately 2 points, or 22 degrees. Assuming that the collision occurred 70 feet west of the port quarter [936]*936of the Tyrone, and that the Chili was going in a course substantially parallel with or bearing in upon that of the Tyrone, as is claimed for her, and that the stern of the Berlin was 278 feet back of the first point of contact, then it follows that the stern of the Berlin would have been across and upon the Tyrone. It is apparent that, if this be correct, the collision could not have taken place within less than 150 feet from the Tyrone. In support of the contention that the Chili made out to port from behind the 'Tyrone, appellant’s witnesses above enumerated testify that the Chili headed across the Berlin’s bow after she was straightened out on the Belle Isle course. Appellees’ witnesses, on the other hand, testify that the Chili was proceeding parallel to the course of the Tyrone until the alarm sounded; that then the order was given to port a little; then, when she was deemed to be headed in a little too far toward the Tyrone; the order was given to starboard a little and steady. In their petition to limit liability, however, ap-pellees aver that when the danger was discovered the Chili hard-ported, checked, and at once'reversed and backed strong. At the time the petition was filed the Berlin had not been raised, and the extent and nature of her injury was not known. This fact, together with the fact that the petition was filed within nine days after the collision, throws suspicion upon the testimony of the witnesses given long after-wards, and, for the purposes of this hearing, the averments of the petition should be assumed to be the truth.

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

Related

The Syracuse
76 U.S. 672 (Supreme Court, 1870)
The George Presley
111 F. 555 (Sixth Circuit, 1901)
American S. S. Co. v. American Steel Barge Co.
129 F. 65 (Sixth Circuit, 1904)
Jones v. Mann
74 F. 572 (Fourth Circuit, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 F. 933, 83 C.C.A. 505, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wineman-v-drake-ca7-1907.