New York & Long Branch Steamboat Co. v. Johnson

• Citation: 195 F. 740
• Decision Date: 27 March 1912
• Docket Number: 1,581.
• Parties: NEW YORK & LONG BRANCH STEAMBOAT CO. v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

195 F. 740

NEW YORK & LONG BRANCH STEAMBOAT CO. v. JOHNSON et al.

No. 1,581.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 27, 1912

McDermott & Enright, for appellant.

Eberhard & Stites, for appellees.

Before GRAY and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.

BUFFINGTON Circuit Judge.

On October 19, 1909, Mrs. Borrea Johnson, a passenger on the steamboat Little Silver, en route from New York to Long Branch, was injured in a collision between that vessel and a barge towed by the tugboat Slatington. For alleged negligence in causing such injury, Mrs. Johnson brought suit in the Supreme Court of New Jersey against the New York & Long Branch Steamboat Company, the charterers of the Little Silver. Hans Johnson also brought a similar suit for the injury sustained by him through said injury to his wife, the said Borrea Johnson. Thereafter the charterer filed a libel in admiralty in the District Court of the District of New Jersey for limitation of liability, under R.S. Secs. 4281 to 4289 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2942 to 2945), and the acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof. The libel recited the suits of Hans and Borrea Johnson, and prayed inter alia, that a monition issue to compel them to prove their claims before a commissioner. Thereupon the Johnsons appeared and filed their answer to the libel, claiming damages to them, respectively by reason of the negligence of the Little Silver in causing the injury to Borrea Johnson. The case was then proceeded in so that the court granted the petitioner's prayer for limitation of liability, and decreed Borrea $4,000 damages and Hans $1,147, which latter sum included $447 for expenses of illness, etc. From a decree so ordering, the charterer appealed to this court.

The appeal raises three question: First. Was the Little Silver negligent? Second. Were the amounts decreed excessive? And third. Was Hans Johnson's claim recoverable in admiralty? As to the first and second questions, it will be seen, by reference to the opinion of the court below, that its conclusions as to the negligence of the Little Silver's pilot are abundantly sustained. That pilot was familiar with the upset tide created by the meeting of the waters from the East and North Rivers, and knew the shifting character of the eddy caused thereby. Ignoring the fact that the speed of the Slatington and her barges might be somewhat impeded by such eddy, and apparently making no allowance therefor, he attempted to cut too close under the tug's stern, when he had plenty of room to avoid it, and as a result he struck the Slatington's barge well forward of its stern. As said by the court below:

'He either grossly miscalculated, or, as is more likely, took a chance.'

As to the amounts of the award, we are of opinion there was evidence of injury to warrant decrees for the amounts allowed. In the nature of things, the fixation of damages may take a very considerable range, and the sums allowed are well within the ranges of the different conclusions that different minds might reach on such testimony. To no one of the members of this court has it seemed that there was any undue allowance made by the judge in the conclusion he reached only after a painstaking and thorough discussion of the proofs in his opinion.

It remains to discuss the third question, namely, whether the husband's claim was recoverable in admiralty. In that regard it might be sufficient to say that he was not a suitor in...