Chester A. Poling, Inc. v. United States, 198.
| Citation | 55 F.2d 921 |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 198.,198. |
| Parties | CHESTER A. POLING, Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William F. Purdy, of New York City (John E. Purdy, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Charles E. Wythe, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
The collision occurred in the vicinity of Throgg's Neck at the entrance to Long Island Sound, shortly after 5 a. m. on October 30, 1929. The Poling Bros. was bound eastward and the Trippe westward, with the tide against her. While the Poling Bros. was still in the East River, the commander of the Trippe observed across the lowland of Throgg's Neck her red running light. This indicated to him that the Poling Bros. was proceeding eastward into the Sound and would turn to port to round the buoy off the point of Throgg's Neck. She rounded the buoy at a distance of about 75 feet, and in making this maneuver opened up her green light, showing both red and green to the Trippe, whose engines had previously been stopped until her commander should see whether the lighter intended to pass to port or to starboard. The lighter continued to swing to the left until only her green light was visible. Thereupon the Trippe's engines were put ahead, but at practically the same moment the Poling Bros. swung back to her starboard until only her red light was visible. The Trippe's engines were immediately reversed at two-thirds speed and her rudder put hard right in an attempt to pass under the Poling Bros.' stern, but the effort failed. The bow of the Trippe struck about six feet from the lighter's stern and caused such damage as necessitated beaching the Poling Bros. Neither vessel had blown any signal. The District Court held the Poling Bros. solely at fault for altering her course without signal.
Upon this appeal the libelant makes no attempt to excuse the Poling Bros., but contends only that the Trippe was also at fault, and that damages should be divided. The position is well taken. It is conceded that the course, though not the headings, of the vessels were head and head, or nearly so. In this situation, rule IV of the Inland Rules applies, and makes it the duty of each vessel to pass on the port side of the other. The rule further provides that "either vessel" shall signal her intention. Had a passing agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulfcoast Transit Company v. M/S KYUNG-JU
...Steamboat Co., et al. v. United States of America, 74 F.2d 977, 981, 1935 AMC 179, 185 (4 Cir., 1935); Poling, Inc. v. United States of America, 55 F.2d 921, 1932 AMC 790 (2 Cir., 1932); Ariosa-Segundo, 116 F.2d 492, 493, 494, 1941 AMC 214, 216, 217 (2 Cir., 1941). They do not countenance a......
-
Construction Aggregates Co. v. Long Island R. Co.
...when the proposal is for a starboard passing. Marshall Field & Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 48 F.2d 763; Chester A. Poling, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cir., 55 F.2d 921; The D. S. Dumper No. 305, 2 Cir., 77 F.2d 315. It applies a fortiori to a port to port passing, because some helm action i......
-
INS. CO., ETC. v. John J. Bordlee Contractors
...§ 203; Chotin, Inc. v. S. S. Gulfknight, 266 F.Supp. 859 (E.D.La., 1966) aff'd 402 F.2d 293 (5th Cir., 1968); Chester A. Poling, Inc. v. United States, 55 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir., 1932). 2. One of the causes of the collision was the failure of the PINA to appreciate the fact that the oncoming MR......
-
Lea River Lines v. The Virginia, 10.
...giving a passing signal and failing to answer or respond to the port to port passing signal given by the Frog, Chester A. Poling et al. v. United States, 2 Cir., 55 F.2d 921; The Jensen No. 1 D. C., 43 F.Supp. 288, affirmed, 2 Cir., 130 F.2d IV. The Virginia was at fault in changing her cou......