The Chelsea
The Chelsea
Opinion of the Court
This action was brought by C. W. Crane & Company, as managing owners of the 3 masted schooner A. P. Emerson, to recover from the steam-propeller Chelsea, the damages caused to the schooner by a collision which happened between the vessels in Long Island Sound, about 24 of a mile southwest of Execution Rock Light, about 7 o’clock in the evening of the 8th day of April, 1904. The tide was ebb.
The schooner was 125 feet long and 29.6 beam and bound to New York from St. John, New Brunswick, with a load of lumber, partly on deck. She was sailing free, with her booms on 'the starboard side. At the time of the collision, she had all her lower sails set, consisting of a spanker, mainsail, foresail, fore head sails, fore stay-sail, jib, flying jib and outer jib. The topsails were furled as the schooner was passing Execution Light and the last of them was being clewed up when the lights of the steamer were first seen. When in the vicinity of the collision the schooner was steering a S. W. course. The wind was about North-east by East or East North-east. It is claimed by the schooner that she was sailing just before the collision, at the rate of 4J4 or 5 knots, the weather being rainy and nasty but lights easily seen. The master was at the wheel and a lookout duly stationed forward. A Hell Gate Pilot and his son were also on deck. Her proper lights were set and burning. It is also claimed by the schooner, that the Chelsea’s masthead light appeared'shortly before the collision, about J4 or 24 of a point on her starboard bow; that the steamer’s green light then appeared and subsequently red so that at the time of the collision, she was showing both. The schooner was struck by the steamer’s stem on the starboard side forward of the fore rigging. The schooner commenced to sound fog signals when in the vicinity of Execution Light.
The steamer’s master admitted that he knew from the whistles he heard, that there was a sailing vessel coming towards him with a fair wind. There is no serious contention about the steamer’s faults in several respects, principally in proceeding at full speed in a fog, which is claimed to have been dense, but an apportionment of the damages is sought, because of the schooner’s speed, which, it is contended by the steamer, was at least 6 or 7 knots per hour, which rate in fog has been condemned by the authorities.
The speed of the schooner is therefore the only point that requires consideration.
The master of the schooner testifies that the fog signals were commenced on the schooner when she was two or three miles E. N. E. of Execution Light; that the fog then began to shut down and the signals were started; that he began to take in topsails at Execution Light and had them all in but not hauled snug to the masthead at the time of collision; that at Execution Light it was quite thick and he' hauled to the South-west to get into the chan
It appears by the chart that Eatons Point Light on Eatons Neck, is about 20 nautical miles from Execution Light and as the collision occurred a little to the westward of the latter and the schooner passed the former about 4 o’clock, a speed of something over 6 knots appears. At the time of collision, the schooner was still carrying all of her lower sails and as they were receiving some benefit from the change of course at Execution Light, it may safely be assumed that when the vessels came together, the schooner was going as much as 6 knots.
The question to be determined is whether the schooner under the circumstances was in fault for excessive speed. The claimant so contends, citing several cases where such a rate in a fog has been held to be condemnatory. The difficulty with 'the steamer’s contention is, that she assumes the schooner to have been sailing in a dense fog. The preponderance of the testimony is to the effect that the schooner was not sailing in such a fog. She was doubtless sailing into the one of that character in which the steamer had been navigating, but the schooner had not reached the dense part at the time of collision. The testimony indicates that the steamer was coming out of it. Probably the schooner, in the exercise of greater precaution, should have reduced sail before she did, but her action in this respect is not so obviously negligent as to involve her in the responsibility for the collision, which can be fully accounted for by the steamer’s plain faults.
The steamer was on a course which would have carried her safely clear of the schooner, starboard to starboard, and she starboarded
Under all the circumstances, I do not consider it a case in which the schooner should be held as a participant in the negligence, which caused the damages.
Decree for the libellant, with an order of reference.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THE CHELSEA
- Status
- Published