The general rule is for a sailing vessel meeting a steamer to
keep her course while the steamer takes the necessary measures to
avoid a collision.
And though this rule should not be observed when the
circumstances are such that it is apparent its observance must
occasion a collision, while a departure from it will prevent one,
yet it must be a strong case which puts the sailing vessel in the
wrong for obeying the rule.
The present is not such a strong case, and therefore the steamer
must be condemned in the damages and costs resulting from a
collision between herself and a sailing vessel.
Page 59 U. S. 582
In the first case, the libellants were owners of the schooner
Hero, of Maine, and in the second case, Lord was the owner
of a cargo of corn and flour laden on board of
The Hero,
bound from New York to Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
The circumstances of the collision are set forth in the opinion
of the Court.
The district court dismissed the libels with costs, which decree
was affirmed in the circuit court.
MR. JUSTICE CURTIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District of New York in a cause of
collision, prosecuted by the owners of the schooner
Hero
against the steamer
Isaac Newton.
On the sixteenth of July, 1850, the schooner
Hero, of
the burden of 100 tons, which had been lying at pier No. 15 on the
North River in the City of New York, hauled out of the dock, soon
after sunrise got up her mainsail and both jibs, and pushed off
into the stream. The tide was about half ebb, setting to the
southward and eastward, and the wind was about southeast, but so
light that very little way could be made. A brig was at anchor in
the river a little below pier No. 15, about one hundred and fifty
yards from the piers, and immediately below the brig at the
distance of about 300 feet, two ships were also anchored. When
The Hero had got within a short distance of the brig and
was nearly between the brig and the town, and while her crew were
in the act of hoisting the peak of the foresail, the body of the
sail being up, the steamer
Isaac Newton came down the
river, and seeing no clear passage to her dock at pier No. 16
except that of about 300 feet between the brig and the ships at
anchor, swung round, passed between those vessels at anchor,
straightened up alongside the brig for her dock, and then, for the
first time, discovered
The Hero directly in her course.
The two ships being at anchor astern of the steamer, the latter
could not back without the certainty of injuring herself and one of
the ships; she kept on her course, struck
The Hero on the
starboard bow, which was stove, and the schooner almost immediately
filled.
It is pleaded that
The Hero was in fault because her
helm was not put hard down and kept there when the danger was first
discovered. The distance between the steamer and the schooner when
the latter straightened up and headed for the former was only about
400 feet, as testified by the pilot in charge of the steamer. The
opportunity for the schooner to make any maneuver
Page 59 U. S. 583
was consequently very small, and though some of the witnesses
say there was breeze enough at the moment to give the schooner
steerage way, others deny this. It must be remembered that the
general rule is for a sailing vessel meeting a steamer to keep her
course while the steamer takes the necessary measures to avoid a
collision. And though this rule should not be observed when the
circumstances are such that it is apparent its observance must
occasion a collision, while a departure from it will prevent one,
yet it must be a strong case which puts the sailing vessel in the
wrong for obeying the rule. The court must clearly see not only
that a deviation from the rule would have prevented collision, but
that the commander of the sailing vessel was guilty of negligence
or a culpable want of seamanship in not perceiving the necessity
for a departure from the rule, and acting accordingly.
We do not think this was such a case. Besides, the master of the
schooner testifies that the helm of the schooner had been put hard
down by him and fastened there in a becket as soon as he saw the
steamer and before hailed from the latter. In this he is
corroborated by his mate and crew. Other witnesses say they saw a
man run aft, when hailed, and put the helm first up and then down.
This apparent discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact
mentioned by those on board the schooner that after the master had
left the helm hard down in a becket and just before the collision,
the mate ran aft. Perhaps he went to the helm, and he may have
changed it. But we do not think what he did could have influenced
the result. Fault was also attributed to the schooner in the
argument at the bar because she left her dock when the wind was so
light and baffling that she was not really manageable. But we think
there was no impropriety in her being where she was at the time of
the collision, with her sails hoisted, waiting for a wind to get
out of the harbor, any more than in her being at anchor there. It
is true she would have no right to endanger other vessels by
drifting afoul of them. This she was bound to avoid by coming to
anchor. But till there was danger of this, and none such appears in
the case, she had a right to wait for a wind there in daylight,
with her sails hoisted.
We hold the schooner to have been free from fault.
After a careful consideration of the evidence, we cannot think
the steamer did all that could reasonably be required to avoid the
collision. After the schooner was seen from the steamer, we have no
doubt a collision, either with the schooner, or with one of the
ships at anchor, was inevitable, and that the steamer chose that
alternative least dangerous to herself, and ran down the schooner.
But the fault was in not discerning the schooner
Page 59 U. S. 584
before getting into that position. Though the brig was at anchor
between the steamer and the schooner when the former was sweeping
across the river and heading for the opening between the brig and
the ships, yet the sails of the schooner were hoisted, and must
have been visible over the hull of the brig. The steamer therefore
made for this passage not only without first ascertaining it to be
clear, but without discovering the sails of the schooner which
might and ought to have been seen, and which, if seen, would have
warned those managing her that the passage there was not clear. We
hold this attempt of the steamer to come to her landing between the
vessels at anchor without first ascertaining that the track was
clear to have been culpable, and accordingly that she must be
condemned in the damages and costs.
The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause
remanded to be proceeded with according to law.
MR. JUSTICE DANIEL dissented in both cases.