City of Richmond
City of Richmond
Opinion of the Court
In a dense fog on the morning of January 9, the bay steamboat City of Richmond ran into the ocean going steamship Texan, while the latter was riding at her anchor dropped upon the anchorage grounds in Baltimore harbor. Each was damaged, and each says the other was solely to blame.
There is no question that the Texan’s fog bell .was being duly sounded, as required by law. The master of the City of Richmond heard bells, but he did not know from what vessel they came. At the point of collision, the channel is 600 feet wide, and several hundred feet of it were unquestionably clear of any obstruction.
The iTi> o t Richmond says that at the time she first saw the Texan she was not going more than a knot an hour, and she points in corroboraliotf to Ye fací that after the collision she came almost immediately to a full stop; but her so doing may have been due to the resistance offered by the comparatively immense weight of the Texan. It is certain that during most of the night, in which other bay craft came to anchor, she, with a stop of but an hour, had come from West Point and her other York river landings to the entrance of the Baltimore harbor, in thick weather, through floating ice, at a speed almost equal to the best she is accustomed to make under midsummer conditions. According to her log, she passed the Lazaretto Light at 8:52 a. m. and Henderson’s Wharf 23 minutes later. As the distance between these points is close to a mile and a half, her average speed during the whole time could not have been less than 3 to 4 miles an hour, allowing nothing for the stoppage caused by the collision, and not taking into account the possibility that she moved faster before she met with misfortune than she did afterwards. On the whole, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that she was going very much faster than she now admits.
The Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit has recently said in 'Phe City of Norfolk, 266 Fed. 641, that the moderate speed to which a vessel under such conditions as those which confronted the City of Richmond must limit herself means “a speed so slow that the ve.ssel can
She was a large and heavy ship, drawing 31 feet 6 inches of water and having a length of 487 feet. In this harbor the anchorage grounds are restricted in area. Anchored where the Texan was, if the wind changed to the east or northeast, as during the night if did, the ship would swing around, so that from 100 to 200 feet of her after part would be in the channel, and yet, if she was to anchor in this publicly provided anchorage ground at all, the place at which she dropped her anchor was well chosen. It has been suggested that she should have gone on some distance further to other anchorages. All of them were themselves narrow, and were quite close to the main ship 'channels. Their advantages, if any, were too small to impose upon her any duty of traveling to them in the thickening fog and ice.
It is contended that, if what has thus far been said is true, she
It has been suggested that, if he let go his anchor where he did, he should, when the wind shifted, have weighed anchor and cast it again in a place further to the eastward, so that his ship could not get into the channel. In such weather it was not expedient to have as bulky a ship as the Texan groping around in such limited anchorage grounds, to say nothing of the danger of anchoring in a position in which a sudden change of wind would have thrown her aground on the north or against the piers on the east.
- Tin- contention most earnestly stressed by the advocates for the City of kitirmf'tH is Tm. me Texan, knowing how narrow the anchorige was, should have put out a stern anchor also, and so moored herself as to make swinging impossible. It is not customary for merchant ships to do anything of the kind. Witnesses of many years’ experience in the Baltimore harbor, men whose duties require them to be observant of such matters, unite in saying that the only occasion on which it was, to their knowledge, ever done, was that of a battleship on a very recent visit to the inner harbor of this city.
Courts have occasionally suggested that under certain circumstances it may be the duty of a ship to hold herself steady by the use of both bow and stern anchors. Such observations have usually been made when the ship was so anchored that its swinging would nearly or altogether close a channel. The Texan argues that it is so rare for merchant vessels to make themselves fast in the manner suggested that an unexpected resort to it in thick weather would increase rather than diminish danger to other craft. When a ship’s lights are made out, the natural presumption, in view of the almost universal practice, is that -the ship is heading to wind and tide. If, in a particular instance, this assumption turns out to be wrong, a collision may well result.
It is unnecessary to pass upon this contention, for, if the Texan be held blameworthy for not mooring, she will be held to a standard of
The Texan, under the fifty-ninth rule (29 Sup. Ct.- xlvi), brought in the Curtis Bay Towing Company upon the theory that, if she was to be held for anchoring in a wrong place, the employer of the tugboat captain, who selected the anchorage, was liable for it. As the City of Richmond must be held solely to blame, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the tug or its owner would have been in any event chargeable.
It follows that the petition against the Curtis Bay Towing Company must be dismissed. The City of Richmond will be held solely in fault, and the usual decree may be presented.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THE CITY OF RICHMOND. THE TEXAN
- Status
- Published