Neither rain, nor the darkness of the night, nor the absence of
a light from a barge or sailing vessel, nor the fact that the
steamer was well manned and furnished, and conducted with caution
will excuse a steamer for coming in collision with a barge or
sailing vessel where the barge or sailing vessel is at anchor or
sailing in a thoroughfare, but out of the usual track of the steam
vessel.
Therefore, where a collision took place between a steamer and a
sailing vessel, the latter being out of the ship channel and near
an edge of shoals, the steamer must be responsible.
The sailing vessel had no pilot, and did not exhibit an
efficient light. Although these circumstances did not exonerate the
steamer, yet they make it necessary for this Court to say that an
obligation rests upon all vessels found in the avenues of commerce
to employ active diligence to avoid collisions, and that no
inference can be drawn from the fact that a vessel is not condemned
for an omission of certain precautionary measures in one case that
another vessel will be excused under other circumstances for
omissions of the same description.
Page 60 U. S. 242
This was a libel filed by Calderwood and the other owners of a
schooner called the
Sprightling Sea against the steamship
Roanoke, her tackle &c., in a case of collision at the
place and under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the
Court.
In July, 1853, the district judge decreed that the libellants
should recover against the steamship the damages occasioned by the
collision, and referred the case to a commissioner to ascertain the
amount.
In September, 1854, the commissioner reported that there was due
to the libellants,
For the value of the vessel at the time of the
collision, after deducting the amount for which
the vessel sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,442.00
Amount added to the value above by court . . . 200.00
The value of the freight . . . . . . . . . . . 162.00
Interest on the above amounts, from
Oct. 17, 1852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672.56
---------
$5,476.56
This report was confirmed by the district court, and upon appeal
the decree was affirmed by the circuit court, an appeal from which
brought the case here.
Page 60 U. S. 245
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a case of collision, in which the steamship
Roanoke is charged with having carelessly and negligently
run into and afoul of the schooner
Sprightling Sea in the
Elizabeth River, Virginia, in October, 1852.
The facts disclosed by the pleadings and proofs are, that the
schooner was ascending the river between 10 and 11 o'clock, P.M.,
and sailing at a rate of six miles per hour, with the aid of the
tide. She was close-hauled on her starboard tack at a time when she
descried the steamship descending the river on her voyage to
Richmond. The collision occurred on the eastern side of the river,
"out of the ship channel," "near an edge of shoals," and "within a
length or two of them." The object of those who managed the
schooner was to avoid all danger by leaving as large a space as
possible for the steamer, whose lights had been seen. For this
purpose they approached as nearly as possible the eastern shore --
the usual shore for vessels navigated as she was to ascend the
river. The schooner did not carry a light in her fore rigging, but
one was exhibited from her breast hook some time before and till
the time of the collision, and the steamer was hailed and told to
keep off.
The night was "dark and rainy;" the steamer was not running at
any time at an improper rate of speed. The officers of the
steamship discovered the light on the schooner and supposed it to
belong "to a vessel at anchor," but they say the "light
disappeared, and the next time they saw it, it was nearby, under
the bow of the steamer." The probability is that the officers of
the steamship were mistaken in their conclusions
Page 60 U. S. 246
in reference to the course of the schooner, and under that
mistaken impression went to the eastern side, and thus encountered
her. No orders were given by the pilot in respect to the management
of the steamer till the instant of the collision.
This Court has decided that neither rain, nor the darkness of
the night, nor the absence of a light from a barge or sailing
vessel, nor the fact that the steamer was well manned and furnished
and conducted with caution will excuse the steamer for coming in
collision with the barge or sailing vessel where the barge or
sailing vessel is at anchor or sailing in a thoroughfare, out of
the usual track of the steam vessel. In the present instance, the
steamer had notice that a vessel was before her and was near her
track, and under the circumstances she was bound to take efficient
measures to avoid the schooner.
The only facts we notice in the management of the schooner which
have occasioned a hesitation to affirm the decree are the absence
of a licensed pilot and that the schooner did not exhibit an
efficient light. The proofs in the case do not allow us to charge
these omissions as indications of negligence, but, that the case
may not be misunderstood, we assert that the ruling principle of
the court is that an obligation rests upon all vessels found in the
avenues of commerce to employ active diligence to avoid collisions,
and that no inference can be drawn from the fact that a vessel is
not condemned for an omission of certain precautionary measures in
one case that another vessel will be excused under other
circumstances for omissions of the same description.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.