Canfield v. The F. & P. M. No. 2
Canfield v. The F. & P. M. No. 2
Opinion of the Court
On the forenoon of the 19th day of October, 1887, the steam-barge James H. Shrigley, and .the propeller F. & P. M. No. 2, collided in the Manistee river, and the question of the fault of such collision, if fault there was, is the subject of inquiry here. Manistee river is an outlet for the waters of Manistee lake, and, at a distance of two miles therefrom by the course of the river, empties into Lake Michigan. At a distance of one-half to three-fifths of a mile from its mouth there is an
Rule 5 of pilot rules for lakes and soa-board provides:
“Whenever a steamer is nearing a short bend or curve in the channel, where, from the height of the banks, or some other cause, a steamer approaching from the opposite direction cannot be seen for-a distance of half a mile, the pilot of such steamer, when he shall have arrived within half a mile of sucli curve or bend, shall give a signal by one long blast of tlie steam-whistle, which signal shall be answered by a similar blast, given by the pilot of any approaching steamer that may be within bearing. Should such signal be so*700 answered by a steamer upon the further side of such bend, then the usual signals for meeting and passing shall immediately be given and answered; but, if the first alarm signal of such pilot be not answered, he is to consider the channel clear, and govern himself accordingly.”
. There is no charge or proof here, either in the libel, answer, or evidence, of failure by either vessel to have timely given this signal. The court is hound to assume, therefore, that each vessel complied with the regulation. Assuming that the signals were given, each vessel understood that the other was approaching. The F. & P. M. No. 2, being the ascending vessel, was bound, if necessary, to stop, and avoid the descending vessel, as her movements could be controlled with less difficulty than those of the descending steamer. The Galatea, 92 U. S. 439. It was perhaps possible, under favorable circumstances, for two vessels to have passed each other in the bend, but it was hazardous. It was negligence unnecessarily to make the attempt, each vessel having timely warning of the other’s approach. Prudence dictates that the ascending vessel should stop and place herself out of the strength of the current, permitting the descending vessel, carried along by force of the current, full swing around the.bend.
Even upon the assumption that the signal required by rule 5 was not given, it satisfactorily appears from the evidence that the P. & P. M. No. 2, upon receiving the first signal of two blasts from the Shrigley, could have safely stopped, and should have stopped. She should not have incurred the unnecessary hazard of collision in the difficult passage of the bend. In this she was negligent. She was then 1,000 feet below the bend. There was sufficient opportunity to avoid all danger of collision. Proceeding in the face of a known danger, she negligently placed herself in a position where she was likely to inflict injury, and should respond for the consequences of her negligence. A decree will be entered for the libelant.
Reference
- Status
- Published