1. An ocean steamer starting from a crowded slip, the motion of
her propeller caused a canal boat to break her fastenings and swing
around against the propeller, whereby she was sunk. The steamer had
no lookout at her stern, by whom the peril of the canal boat might
have been seen in time to stop the propeller and prevent the
collision.
Held that the steamer was in fault.
2. Towage should be employed, when necessary to enable a large
steamer to leave a crowded slip or harbor without damaging other
vessels.
3. Steamers and locomotives should be so managed and operated as
to do the least possible injury consistent with their substantial
usefulness.
4. Those in charge of the canal boat in this case having done
all that reasonable prudence required of them by properly fastening
their boat were held free from blame.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises upon a libel filed in the District Court for
the Southern District of New York by S. J. Quick, master and owner
of the canal boat
Kate Green, for himself and for F. A.
McKnight, against the steamship
Nevada in a cause of
collision. The libel alleges that McKnight was invested by
subrogation or otherwise with the interest of the Western Insurance
Company of Buffalo, who were insurers of 8,100 bushels of corn, the
cargo of the
Kate Green at the time of the collision; that
on the 27th of September, 1871, while the
Page 106 U. S. 155
boat was lying securely fastened in a slip in New York City
between piers No. 46 and No. 46 and No. 47 on the North River, the
Nevada, which had been moored in the same slip on the
north side of pier No. 46, proceeded on her way to sea, and
carelessly and negligently ran into and struck the
Kate
Green with her propeller, causing her to sink, whereby she was
greatly injured and the cargo was destroyed, resulting in a total
damage of $12,000.
The Liverpool and Great Western Steam Company appeared as
claimants of the
Nevada and answered the libel, setting up
that the collision was occasioned solely by the carelessness and
negligence of the master and crew of the
Kate Green.
McKnight filed a petition for leave to intervene, setting forth
his interest in the cargo, to-wit, that it had been insured by the
Western Insurance Company, which became liable for and paid the
full value thereof to the owners, and afterwards became bankrupt,
and at the sale of its assets, he, McKnight, became the purchaser
of its claims arising from the loss and destruction of said cargo.
He was allowed to intervene accordingly.
Proofs being taken, a decree was made by the district court that
the libellants recover their damages and costs against the
Nevada, and it was referred to a commissioner to ascertain
the amount of damage.
The commissioner reported that the damage done to the
Kate
Green, her furniture, loss of freight, and interest, amounted
to $4,289.72, and that the damage to the cargo, with interest, was
$8,109.64. A decree was made for these sums with costs.
Upon appeal to the circuit court, this decree was affirmed and a
new decree was entered (including interest to the date of the
decree) in favor of Quick for the sum of $4,577.65, besides costs,
and in favor of McKnight for the sum of $8,653.98, besides his
costs.
The owners of the
Nevada have appealed from this
decree. So far as relates to Quick, the owner of the
Kate
Green, under the recent ruling of this Court in the case of
Ex Parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., ante, p.
106 U. S. 5, the
appeal must be dismissed; as to McKnight, it is necessary to
examine the case at large.
Page 106 U. S. 156
The circuit court found the facts in detail, of which it is
sufficient to state that about 3 o'clock P.M., September 27, 1871,
the propeller steamship
Nevada, belonging to one of the
regular lines between New York and Liverpool, was lying alongside
of pier No. 46, in the slip between that pier and pier No. 47, on
the North River, New York, about to start on her voyage to
Liverpool. She had been advertised to start at that hour, had rung
her bells and blown her whistle several times, and her signals for
starting were flying at masthead. At that instant, before her screw
was put in motion, a steam tug entered the slip with the canal boat
Kate Green in tow, and placed her alongside of another
canal boat, the
C. H. Hart, lying fastened to a grain
elevator, which was in turn fastened to the steamship
Scotia, lying alongside pier No. 47 on the north side of
the slip. The master and steersman of the
Kate Green,
which lay about sixty feet from the
Nevada, instantly made
her fast to the
Hart, and at that moment the propeller of
the
Nevada began to revolve, and produced a suction and
commotion of the water which caused the
C. H. Hart to
break her fastenings, and the
Kate Green to swing around
under the stern of the
Nevada, where she was struck by the
propeller and sunk, and much injured, and her cargo was lost. She
was not seen from the
Nevada when she came in, and no
special notice was given to her that the
Nevada was about
to leave, and those in charge of her had no actual knowledge of the
fact until the propeller of the
Nevada began to move. As
soon as she began to swing around, her master called loudly to the
Nevada to stop her propeller, but he was not heard, or, if
heard, not heeded.
The court further found as follows:
"10. No one on board of the
Nevada knew of the parting
of the
Hart's lines or of the swinging of the
Green, or of the accident, until after they arrived in
Liverpool. If a man had looked from her deck over her side into the
slip, he could not have failed to see what was going on all the
time, from the first movement of the propeller and before, until
she got out."
"11. There was an abundance of time after the breaking of the
fastenings of the
Hart and after the
Green began
to
Page 106 U. S. 157
swing, and after the hail of her master, to have stopped the
propeller before the collision."
"12. The report of the commissioner as to the damages is
warranted by the evidence, and the libellant McKnight was the owner
of the claim for damages when the libel was filed."
The conclusions of law found by the circuit court were as
follows:
"1. The
Nevada was in fault for not keeping a
sufficient lookout aft and on the side next the slip, and in not
seeing the
Kate Green when she came in or as she swung
over, and in not stopping the propeller in time to avoid the
collision."
"2. The
Kate Green, under the peculiar circumstances in
which she was placed, was not in fault."
"3. The libellants are entitled to recover the damages reported
by the commissioner."
It seems hardly necessary to do more than to state the case as
the facts are found by the court in order to decide it. The
Kate Green came into the slip, it is true at the time the
Nevada was about to leave, and those in charge of her
ought to have known this fact from the ringing of the
Nevada's bells and her visible signals for starting. But
supposing they did know it, what more could they do than they did
do? They immediately made fast to the
C. H. Hart, which
was also made fast to the ship lying at the north pier. It was
reasonable for them to suppose that the fastening of the
Hart was secure. They could not know that it would break.
It was that break which set them adrift, subject to the suction
caused by the motion of the
Nevada's propeller. Their own
fastenings were sufficient. We do not see how the court could find
otherwise than that they were free from fault or negligence.
Perhaps they might have done something else which would have been
better. The event is always a great teacher. They might have staid
out in the river and not entered the slip, or, having entered, they
might have gone back to the bulkhead and stayed there till the
Nevada left. But these possibilities are not the criteria
by which they are to be judged. The question is did they do all
that reasonable prudence required them to do under the
circumstances? And this question, we think, must be answered in the
affirmative.
Page 106 U. S. 158
Then how is it with the
Nevada? Did those on board of
her do all that was reasonably required of them? It is
significantly asked by her counsel whether a steamship is to be
precluded from the use of her own means of locomotion? Must she be
subjected to the inconvenience and expense of employing a tug to
tow her out into open water? That does not necessarily follow. If,
indeed, the action of her propellers is such as to cause
unavoidable injury to other craft in a crowded harbor, or in a
confined space like that of a slip or dock used by vessels of every
kind, she might be justly required to find other means of moving in
a position involving so much peril. This is no more than is
required in analogous cases. Railroad companies are compelled to
slacken the speed of their trains in passing through cities, and
are often either prohibited from using ordinary locomotive engines
in the more public streets or required to guard their tracks by
means of gates, bars, or fences in order to prevent accidents and
collisions. Incidental inconveniences, it is true, attach to the
use of many of the great improvements of the age -- inconveniences
which must be submitted to in order that the public may have the
benefit of those improvements. Almost every new machine inflicts
loss of employment upon some portion of the laboring class, which
are thus obliged to seek other fields of industry. Steamboats have
taken the place of sailing vessels; railroads have interfered with
steamboats, and have rendered useless thousands of stage coaches
and the appliances connected with them. The vast power and speed of
the modern locomotive engine, carrying its thousand passengers or
its hundreds of tons of merchandise, require the private carriage
and the country team to await its passage and give it the right of
way. The large steamer which navigates our rivers creates an
agitation of the waters which cannot be prevented without staying
its speed and crippling its usefulness, and which requires from
smaller vessels in its neighborhood increased attention and care to
avoid being foundered or injured. Horse railroads in cities
encumber the streets with their iron tracks and render the passage
of private vehicles more difficult and dangerous. But while these
incidental and unavoidable inconveniences must be submitted to in
order that the greater benefit derived from
Page 106 U. S. 159
the new improvements may be enjoyed, there still remains the
duty of so managing and operating them as to do the least possible
injury consistent with the fair attainment of their substantial
benefits. The ocean steamer is one of the great inventions of the
century and one of the advanced instrumentalities of modern
civilization, but while it may freely exercise its powerful
propeller and sport its leviathan proportions on the ocean or in
deep and open waters, it is justly required to observe
extraordinary care and watchfulness when surrounded by feebler
craft in a crowded harbor. Under some circumstances and within a
limited space, it may even be required to dispense with the use of
its ordinary means of locomotion, and resort to the employment of
towage or other safe and quiet means of changing its position and
effecting its necessary movements. Such a modification of the use
of its power, when absolutely required for the safety of other
vessels rightfully located in its vicinity, would produce no
material diminution of its efficiency in the accomplishment of its
principal design.
However we do not mean to say that, in the application of these
principles to the present case, it was the duty of the
Nevada to remit the use of her propeller in leaving her
place in the slip where she lay. The court does not find her in
fault for using it, but for not having a lookout at her stern and
on the side next to the slip who could have seen the breaking away
of the
Hart and
Kate Green from their fastenings
and, by giving timely alarm, could have averted the disaster by a
momentary stopping of the
Nevada's engine. In such a place
and in the midst of such a crowd of vessels as then filled the
slip, since she did put her propeller in motion, she was bound to
use the utmost caution and circumspection in order to avoid doing
injury. The least that could be expected of her was a constant
lookout at every part. But the court finds that
"no one on board the
Nevada knew of the parting of the
Hart's lines or of the swinging of the
Green or
of the accident until after they arrived at Liverpool. If a man had
looked from her deck over her side into the slip, he could not have
failed to see what was going on all the time, from the first
movement of the propeller and before until she got out."
And the court further finds that
"there
Page 106 U. S. 160
was abundant time after the breaking of the fastenings of the
Hart and after the
Green began to swing, and
after the hail of her master, to have stopped the propeller before
the collision."
This, as it seems to us, settles the case and amply justifies
the conclusion of law made by the court below, that
"the
Nevada was in fault for not keeping a sufficient
lookout aft and on the side next the slip and in not seeing the
Kate Green when she came in, or as she swung over, and in
not stopping the propeller in time to avoid the collision."
In view of the principles to which we have adverted and which
ought to control this case, no other conclusion could have been
reached.
We see no error in the decree of the circuit court, and it is
therefore, with interest and costs.
Affirmed.