The Columbia
The Columbia
Opinion of the Court
This is a collision case. The vessels which came together were the steamship Columbia and the barge Elizabeth E. Vane. At the time the latter was in tow of the tug Howard Reedier. The barge was sunk. It and its cargo were a total loss.. Its master libeled the Columbia. By petition under the fifty-ninth rule the latter brought in the Reeder. The Reeder filedl a cross-libel against the Columbia. The cases were consolidated.
The Vane was of wood. It was 178 feet 9 inches long, and 23 feet 9 inches wide. It was laden with 550 tons of crushed stone. This cargo had been shipped at Port Deposit on the Susquehanna river. The Vane was to carry it to Hampton, Va. The Reed'er undertook to tow the Vane to its destination. It was to take other barges down the bay at the same time. At the time of the collision the Reeder was towing the Vane up the Brewerton Channel to Baltimore, at which port the tow was to be made up. The Reeder and the Vane left Port
The captain of the Reeder made several different statements as to his position when he blew the second one-blast signal. At one time he says he was in sight of buoy 26 when he gave the second signal, but had not quite reached it. At another time he says he was only 30 feet away from the buoy, and again that it might have taken him a minute or a minute and a half to have reached it.
We know where the collision took place. The Vane sank almost immediately afterwards. From the way in which it was struck it is not probable that it thereafter moved many feet either up or down the channel. A witness for the defendant says that a buoy which the government placed on the wreck was 435 feet in a straight line from buoy 26. The same witness says that the temporary buoy was to the south of the center line of the channel. The channel is 600 feet wide. The collision therefore happened almost directly opposite buoy 26. If the tug was in time one minute short of buoy 26, the collision happened one minute plus the time it would take the tug to move the length of the hawser 450 feet thereafter. The tug was moving a mile in 10 minutes. It would have moved 450 feet in about 45 seconds. The collision therefore happened not more than 2 minutes after the signals were interchanged. Probably the interval was still shorter. While the tug was moving 1,050 feet, the Columbia would have moved 2,100. The Columbia at the time of the interchange of signals would
After the Columbia answered the Reeder, the former was put on a S. E. % S. course. No further change of course was intentionally made by it until it was abreast of the Reeder. They passed each other port to port at a distance of approximately 150 feet. As the Columbia came abreast of the tug, or immediately before it came abreast of it, the steamship began to sheer violently to port. Its helm was at once thrown hard to port. Its engines were put full speed astern. The sheer, however, could not be arrested. The Columbia struck the Vane about 20 feet abaft the latter’s bow, and cut into it for some 16 feet. Until the sheer manifested itself the speed of the Columbia was not reduced. In its pleadings the Reeder claims that the Columbia’s steering gear was out of order, and that the sheer resulted from that cause. There is nothing in the evidence to sustain this contention. The position in which the Vane was when the collision took place shows that at the time the sheer began the Columbia must have been close to, if not partly over, the south slope of the channel. When at a speed of 12 miles an hour a vessel of the Columbia’s size and draught approaches the bank of a channel dredgedl 35 feet deep, or when it attempts to pass over such a bank, a rank sheer is very likely to take place. When such a thing happens, it cannót be controlled by the vessel’s helm. I have no doubt that the sheer in this case was due to this cause, and to this cause alone. If the sheer had not taken place, there would have been no collision.
Why was the .Columbia in a position in which such a sheer was not altogether unlikely to happen? The Columbia says that it went close to, or partly on, the south bank of the channel because it had to if it was to pass at a safe distance the tug and its tow port to port. This is one of the controverted questions in the case. I am persiiaded that the Columbia’s contention in this respect is well founded!. The sheer manifested itself as the Columbia was passing the Reeder. There was
Taking all things into consideration, I am satisfied that, when it was struck, it was not less than 100 feet to the south of the center line, perhaps more.
No explanation is given by any one on the tug or the tow as to why they were on the wrong side of the channel. Indeed of the four persons on the deck of the tug and the tow only one claims to know on
There are two theories as to the place at which this passing took place. The captain of the Florida says that the only tug he recalls passing that night went by when his ship was in the neighborhood of the bell buoy. He says that the tug at that time was outside of the channel altogether and to the south of it. Such of the witnesses for the tug and tow as have any distinct recollection on the subject say that they did pass the Florida near the bell buoy. They claim that they were then in the channel, although in its southern half. If the Florida- was passed at the bell buoy, one of two things must be true. Either the tug and tow must then have been well to the south of the channel, or they were unnecessarily tardy in getting into the northern half of it. The former is the more probable. For some time, before the Columbia turned from the Ft. McHenry Channel into the Brewerton Channel the lights of the tug were visible from the Columbia. Under such conditions, the tug’s green light should have been seen by the Columbia, unless the tug was then on a course which would ultimately have carried it across the channel from the south to the north. The Columbia’s people say that except once, and then for a moment only, they never saw the Reeder’s green light. I think, however, that it is demonstrable that the Florida actually passed the' Reeder and the Vane at a point much nearer Baltimore than the bell buoy.
The distance from Ft. Carroll to the point of collision is about 2 miles. From the latter point to the bell buoy is about 2% miles. The bell buoy is therefore about 4% miles from Ft. Carroll. Between these points the Florida’s speed did not exceed 15 miles an hour. It
I believe that the entries in the logbook of the Florida showing the time at which it passed the Lazaretto Light and subsequently Ft. Carroll are correct, as also the entry in the log of the Columbia showing the time at which it passed Ft. Carroll. If the Columbia was at Ft. Carroll at 7:29 it would have taken, at the speed at which it was traveling, about 12 minutes to have reached the place of collision, and the collision would have taken place about 7:41. If the Florida passed Ft. Carroll at 7:28, it would have traveled the 4% miles to the bell buoy in about 18 minutes, and would have arrived there at about 7:46. Now, it is true that the log of the Florida says it arrived at the Seven Foot Knoll at 7:44. The Seven Foot Knoll is about two miles beyond the bell buoy. Capt. Almy of the Florida says that the entry 7 :44 is a clerical mistake for 7:54. There can be no doubt that he is right. At 15 miles an hour, it would have taken the Florida 26 minutes from Ft. Carroll to the Seven Foot Knoll, and 26 minutes would have brought it there at precisely 7:54. Moreover, from the Seven Foot Knoll to the Sandy Point Light is about 83/2 miles. At 15 miles an hour the Florida would have traveled this distance in 34 minutes, and would have arrived there at 8:28, which is precisely the time her log shows she did arrive. It follows that the Florida did not pass the bell buoy until five minutes after the collision had taken place.
It has been stated that the witnesses have been inclined to fix the time of the collision as about 7:35. The facts already stated show that it could not have taken place much before 7:41. The Reeder and the Vane traveled about six miles an hour. It would have taken them at that rate of speed about 21 minutes to go from the bell buoy to the place of collision. If the collision took place as early as 7:35, they must have passed the bell buoy at 7:14, which was 14 minutes before the Florida reached Ft. Carroll. If the collision took place at 7:41, they must have passed the bell buoy as early as 7:20, which was 8 minutes before the Florida got to Ft. Carroll. Even upon the impossible assumption that the entry in the logbook of the” Florida that the time it passed Seven Foot Knoll is not erroneous, the Florida must have gone by the bell buoy not earlier than 7:36, and; if it there passed the tug and its tow, the collision could not have taken place until 7:57, very much later than anybody supposes it did take place. All these
For these reasons, I am constrained to find that the Florida passed the Réeder and the Vane not more than a mile ahead of the Columbia. As.the Columbia was traveling 12 miles an hour towards the Vane, and the Vane 6 miles an hour towards the Columbia, the time which elapsed between the passing of the Vane by the Florida and the collision was probably slightly less than 3% minutes. -Assuming this to be true, what afterwards happened is easy to understand. The Reeder blew one blast to the Columbia. The Columbia at that time was on the northernmost' side of the channel. In this position the Columbia did not suppose that the Reeder could intend the signal for it. It was easy for the Reeder and the Vane to pass the Columbia as they had passed the Florida. The Columbia accordingly did not answer. By the time the second signal was given some moments had elapsed1. The Columbia attempted to pass port to port. To do so safely it was necessary for her to get very close to the south bank. The sheer followed. Such being the state of facts, the Reeder was, in my judgment, in fault. It had! no right to call upon the Columbia to execute a manoeuvre which, as the result showed, could be carried out with perfect safety only upon condition that the Columbia should instantly and greatly reduce her speed and otherwise navigate with great care and caution.
As between the Columbia and the Reeder, the latter was unquestionably the privileged vessel. It had the right, however, to exercise its privilege only for its own protection. It had no right unnecessarily to increase the difficulties of the Columbia. There would have been neither difficulty nor danger in its passing the Columbia as it had passed the Florida. There was difficulty and danger in the method' of passing it compelled!.
Nor is the Columbia free from blame. The fact that its captain when he heard the first signal from the Reeder did not believe it could be intended for his vessel strongly suggests that he then appreciated that the manoeuvre indicated by that signal if it was intended for his ship would be a delicate one. It became all the more-delicate by the "lapse of time resulting from his failure immediately to respond to it. When the second signal was sounded by the Reeder, he should either have at once reversed his engines and given the-danger signal, or have instantly greatly -reduced his speed. He did' neither! He undertook the dangerous manoeuvre of running his ves
Both the Columbia and the Reeder agree that the Vane was not in fault. The conclusion follows that the damage caused by the collision must be divided equally between the Columbia and the Reeder.
After having announced at the close of the hearing that I should hold both the Columbia and the Reeder in fault, at a subsequent day the parties were given a hearing upon the ascertainment of damage. The only difficult question involved was the value of the Vane at the time of the collision. That was not a matter of accounting. It seemed unnecessary to incur the delay and expense of a reference. There was the usual conflicting testimony as to the value of the Vane-It was not a new vessel. On the other hand, it seems to have been in excellent condition and repair. As a result of causes which have manifested themselves in many other directions, the cost of construction, of such a barge is now greater than it was at the time it was built. The price of such vessels has accordingly increased.
Taking all the considerations together, I find the fair market value of the Vane at the time it was sunk was $10,000. I shall allow that sum with interest from the date of the hearing on the assessment of damages.
I find her net earned freight at the time of the collision to have been $100.
The other items of damage, viz., the value of the cargo and of the personal effects of the captain and crew of the Vane, and the damage to the Reeder, have been agreed upon among the parties.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THE COLUMBIA. THE HOWARD REEDER
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Collision (§ 102*)—Steamer and Barge in Tow—Mutual Faults of Steamer and Tug. Tlie steamer Columbia, passing down the Brewerton Channel from Baltimore at night, came into collision with and sunk the barge Vane, which was passing up in tow of the tug Reeder on a 75-fathom hawser. The Reeder and tow were on the south side of the channel, and the Columbia had entered from the north side, when the tug signaled to pass port and port. From the positions of the vessels, the Columbia supposed the signal was not meant for her, and did not answer until it was repeated later, when she assented and went to starboard. The dredged channel was 600 feet wide, and the tug was so far to the south that the Columbia, in order to pass safely, went so close to the hank that she was caused to sheer to port and struck the barge before she could be controlled. Held, that the Reeder, while the privileged vessel, was in fault for being with her tow on the wrong side of the channel, and for requiring the Columbia to pass port to port, which clearly involved risk, when they could safely have passed starboard to starboard as the Reeder had just passed another steamer; that the Columbia was also in fault for assenting to the signal, and then keeping her speed of 12 miles an hour, which she maintained until she began to sheer. [Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Collision, Dec. Dig. § 102.* Collision with or between towing vessels and vessels in tow, see note to The John Englis, 100 C. C. A. 581.]