1. A schooner approaching a steamer coming towards her on a
parallel line, with the difference of half a point in the course of
the two, tending to a convergence, does right when she keeps on her
course, and the steamer is bound to keep out of her way and to
allow her a free and unobstructed passage. Whatever is necessary
for this it is the steamer's duty to do, and to avoid whatever
obstructs or endangers the sailing vessel in her course.
2. Fault on the part of the sailing vessel at the moment
preceding a collision (assuming fault to have existed) does not
absolve a steamer, which has suffered herself and a sailing vessel
to get in such dangerous proximity as to cause inevitable
confusion, and collision as a consequence.
3. These doctrines -- doctrines declared in
The
Carroll, 8 Wall. 302, and
The
Fannie, 11 Wall. 238 -- redeclared and applied
4. A decree of a district court where interest was not in terms
given, affirmed in this Court, April 28, 1872, with interest at the
rate allowed in the district where given, from its date, March 12,
1869, the appeals being considered not well founded.
A little after midnight of December 20th, 1868, the moon not
shining but the night not being a dark one, the schooner
Page 82 U. S. 677
Champion, sailing up Chesapeake Bay for Baltimore and
keeping about five miles from the western shore of the bay, was
seen at the distance of two miles on the southeast by the steamer
Lucille going down the bay and out to sea. The wind was a
very light breeze from the southeast, and the course of the
schooner north by west, her sails well set on the port side. The
course of the steamer was south by east half east, and her rate
about seven or eight miles an hour. In a little while, there being
no allegation of any natural cause for a catastrophe, nor
allegation of want of proper lights or that they were not seen, the
steamer came stem on, upon the schooner, the steamer's port bow
striking the schooner's starboard bow; the sails of the schooner
still upon the port side, jibing over and injuring the steamer
somewhat, but the schooner herself being "ripped right open, fore
and aft," and going very soon to the bottom with her cargo and
three of her crew; the captain climbing up on the steamer and
escaping with his life.
Hereupon the owners of the schooner promptly, January 2, 1869,
libeled the steamer in the district court for Maryland, alleging
that the schooner had kept on her course in order that the steamer
might pass to her starboard; that the steamer saw her in abundant
time to get out of her way; that the steamer made no attempt in
time to change her course; that when the schooner saw that there
was danger of a collision, it was too later for her to do anything
effective to prevent it, and that the catastrophe was chargeable to
the negligence and mismanagement of the steamer alone.
The answer of the steamer alleged that going on the courses that
the vessels were going,
"they would have passed each other at a considerable distance
apart, but that without any danger prompting, and from pure
negligence and want of care, the schooner, when she was nearly
opposite the steamer, changed her course to the westward and came
directly on the said steamer."
The steamer sought to support this view of the case by the
testimony of one of her men, who swore that "when the schooner
struck, she was heading across the bay, her head
Page 82 U. S. 678
toward the southwest," and by testimony of her captain, who
swore that after the catastrophe, and after the master of the
schooner had got on board of the Lucille, he said, in conversation,
that "he had put his helm hard up,"
i.e., had put it to
the windward. [
Footnote 1]
The schooner, on the other hand, denied that she had changed her
course, except in the moment of imminent peril and to escape
certain destruction, and relied on the testimony of witnesses for
the steamer who testified that they had noted the change, though
they spoke of it as a change then accomplished -- "when the steamer
was within thirty yards of her" -- "two minutes before the
collision," and relied also on the testimony of seamen from their
own vessel that "the schooner could not have changed her course so
far round as west, as her sails would have jibed and gone over to
starboard," which it was testified positively they never did till
the collision took place.
The schooner, which had been recently purchased by the
libellants, was not a new vessel, but she had been lately put into
good order by them, and with her cargo, oysters, was shown to have
been worth $2,800; and on the 12th of March, 1869, the district
court condemned the steamer in that sum. On the 12th of April
following, her owners appealed to the circuit court, and on the 5th
of January, 1871, the decree of the district court was affirmed,
the decree in neither court, however, providing in terms that it
should bear interest. On the 14th of January, 1871, they appealed
to this Court, and the case was argued on the 10th of April,
1873.
Page 82 U. S. 679
MR. JUSTICE HUNT now, April 28, 1873, delivered the opinion of
the Court.
The principles of law applicable to this case are well settled.
They are not disputed by either party. In the case of
The
Carrol, [
Footnote 2] it is
thus laid down:
"Nautical rules require that where a steamship and sailing
vessel are approaching each other from opposite directions or on
intersecting lines, the steamship, from the moment the sailing
vessel is seen, shall watch with the highest diligence her course
and movements so as to be able to adopt such timely means of
precaution as will necessarily prevent the two boats from coming in
contact. Fault on the part of the sailing vessel at the moment
preceding a collision does not absolve a steamer which has suffered
herself and a sailing vessel to get in such dangerous proximity as
to cause inevitable alarm and confusion, and collision as a
consequence. The steamer, as having committed a far greater fault
in allowing such proximity to be brought about, is chargeable with
all the damages resulting from a collision."
The rule laid down in the case of
The Fannie, [
Footnote 3] is still more applicable to
the case before us. It was held that a schooner meeting a steamer
approaching her on a parallel line, with the difference of half a
point in the course of the two, ought to have kept on her course;
that a steamer approaching
Page 82 U. S. 680
a sailing vessel is bound to keep out of her way, and to allow
her a free and unobstructed passage. Whatever is necessary for this
it is her duty to do, and to avoid whatever obstructs or endangers
the sailing vessel in her course. If, therefore, the sailing vessel
does not change her course so as to embarrass the steamer and
render it difficult for her to avoid a collision, the steamer alone
is answerable for the damage of a collision, if there is one.
The schooner was sailing up the bay, on a course of north by
west, with a very light breeze from the southeast. The steamer was
sailing down the bay, with a course south by east half east, at
about seven or eight miles an hour. When the steamer's men first
saw the schooner, the vessels were about two miles apart. The
vessels, it will be observed, were on courses nearly parallel. The
half-point of difference tended to a convergence.
Upon this state of facts, the duty of the sailing vessel was to
continue upon her course, leaving it to the steamer to avoid the
collision. It was the plain duty of the steamer to accept this
responsibility, and to assume that such would be the action of the
schooner. The schooner was considerably to the eastward of the
steamer, and it would seem that by simply bearing a half-point to
the west, by which the convergence would be destroyed and perfectly
parallel lines would result, that the steamer could have
accomplished the safety of the passage. If there was any reason why
this could not be done, which does not appear, a bearing to the
east, by which the convergence would have been increased, would
have carried the steamer in safety across the bows of the schooner.
Neither course was adopted, but pursuing the middle course, so
often the path of safety, but in this case most injudicious, of
remaining on the course of south by east half east, the vessels
came together.
The steamer seeks to avoid this difficulty by the allegation
that the schooner changed her course, putting up her helm -- that
is, putting it to starboard, and thus throwing the schooner across
the bows of the steamer. This view is sought to be sustained by the
evidence that the captain
Page 82 U. S. 681
stated that he had put up his helm, and that the schooner was
struck on her starboard bow by the port bow of the steamer. It is
argued that this situation could have been produced in no other
way.
We cannot believe that the schooner, bound northerly to
Baltimore, with a breeze from the southeast, would have been
sailing on a southwesterly course. This was quite out of her
direction, and cannot be admitted, and yet it is the effect of the
theory we are considering. Again, if such had been the course of
the schooner, it would have thrown her sails to the starboard,
whereas it is proved that her sails were on the port side, and so
remained until the actual collision, when they shifted to the
starboard, doing some injury to the steamer. If the schooner put up
her helm, it was in the moment of anxiety, and to avoid the danger
of collision, which was then imminent. It is quite probable that
seeing the steamer coming upon her, she put up her helm and sheered
to the west, as the best means of escape. The steamer, at about the
same moment, must have put her helm a-port, and thus the port bow
of the steamer and the starboard bow of the schooner were brought
together. This is the natural explanation of the position, and is
consistent with the evidence on the subject.
We are satisfied that no change was made in the course of the
steamer until she was almost upon the schooner, as some of the
witnesses express it, when she was within two minutes of the
collision, as others say, when within thirty yards of the schooner,
and that the collision was the result of her negligence.
There is no reason to suppose that the damages are excessive.
The vessel had been purchased recently, and had been repaired after
the purchase. The value of the vessel and of the cargo were
sufficiently established, and the decree was within the amount
proven.
The decree should be affirmed with interest from its date,
March 12 1869, at the rate of interest allowed by the laws of
Maryland.
[
Footnote 1]
The effect of this, of course, as the wind was from the
southeast, would have been to bring the schooner in contact with
the steamer.
[
Footnote 2]
75 U. S. 8 Wall.
302.
[
Footnote 3]
78 U. S. 11 Wall.
238.
