AH BULL SS COMPANY v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 July 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 324.,324. |
| Parties | A. H. BULL S. S. COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. THE CLARE. THE CHINOOK. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City (John W. Crandall, of New York City, of counsel), for Bull S. S. Co.
Charles H. Tuttle, U. S. Atty., and Horace M. Gray, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City, for the United States.
Harry D. Thirkield, of New York City, for appellee National Sugar Refining Co.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
L. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The speed of the Chinook was very slight. She had got only a few hundred feet over the ground when she was struck, and though this proves that she was under way, since she was breasting a substantial tide, it also shows that she could not have acquired much momentum. Her equivocal navigation resulted from her failure to forecast what the course of the Clare was to be; she supposed the vessels would pass starboard to starboard, because the Clare was headed across her bows; indeed, Mr. Gray even insists that it was a crossing case. It was neither of these but a port to port passing. It is the proposed courses of the vessels that count, if they are apparent to each other. The Hallgrim, 20 F.(2d) 720 (C. C. A. 2); Commonwealth & Dom. Line v. U. S., 20 F. (2d) 729 (C. C. A. 2). The headings of vessels in a winding channel will change with the bends, but their courses are usually disclosed, and, when they are, each must prepare in advance for their headings when they meet. The Chinook was charged with notice that the Clare would port at the buoy, or, if in doubt, was bound at once to blow an alarm and back (article 18, rule III; Inspectors' Rules, rule I). It was therefore a fault to change her course to port, gratuitously assuming that the Clare meant to cross her bows.
Again, she was wrong in proposing to go out on the port side of the channel, a mistake which contributed to the result. Her proper course was to keep her southwesterly heading and get over where she belonged. While it is true that the Clare saw her in season to adapt her navigation to her position, she was only just under way, and the Clare rightly enough assumed that she would move over to the starboard side. Moreover, we can find no excuse for her failure to take the Clare's signal for herself, or to misunderstand it. Coupled with the Clare's position, about 500 feet from the east boundary of the channel, the mistake seems inexplicable. These initial misconceptions account for the curious vacillation in her movements, which, taken alone, are not perhaps to be charged against her; she was trying to meet the helm movements of the Clare, which only seemed unaccountable to her because of her disregard of the facts.
The Clare's faults are not quite so clear. The position was right, her signal appropriate, and her first helm movement accorded, not only with her apparent purpose, but with proper navigation, though she was not as much cramped as she says, for she had enough room to starboard. But the Chinook, at her slight speed, was able to move less quickly, and the situation rested more in the Clare's hands than in hers. While we think that she was at fault before, she was certainly at fault after, seeing the Chinook's swing to port, which threw her bows upon the Clare's proposed course. At that time her master puts the distance between the vessels at 1,500 feet, not enough, as he thought, to kill her way before they met. We are not satisfied that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
COMPLAINT OF BFT NO. TWO CORP.
...of overcaution, but they take their chances. If they escape, well and good; if they fail, their owners pay. A. H. Bull S.S. Co. v. United States, 34 F.2d 614, 616 (2d Cir. 1929). This case attests to the continuing vitality of Judge Hand's admonition: the facts reveal that sailors continue ......
-
Moran Scow Corporation v. SS BOSTON
...vessel is bound to stop. The New York, 175 U.S. 187, 20 S.Ct. 67, 44 L.Ed. 126; The Munaires 2 Cir. 1 F.2d 13; A. H. Bull S.S. Co. v. U. S. 2 Cir. 34 F.2d 614, 616. As was said by the Court of Appeals of this circuit: `A vessel which has signaled by two blasts that she intends passing to st......
-
Daniels v. Trawler Sea-Rambler
...no liability should be imposed upon the ship. See The Ludvig Holberg, 157 U.S. 60, 70, 15 S.Ct. 477, 39 L.Ed. 620; A. H. Bull S. S. Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 614; Pacific-Atlantic S. S. Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 632, 640, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 868, 70 S.Ct. 143......
-
China Union Lines, Ltd. v. AO Andersen & Co.
...judge on this issue. Other cases cited by appellants, such as Richard J. Barnes, 111 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1940); A. H. Bull S. S. Company v. United States, 34 F.2d 614 (2d Cir. 1929); Melrose-Sandcraft, 237 F.2d 884 (2d Cir. 1957), and others, involved crossed signals or a change of course of ......