City of Philadelphia v. Gavagnin

• Decision Date: 09 July 1894
• Docket Number: 20.
• Citation: 62 F. 617
• Parties: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. GAVAGNIN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

62 F. 617

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. GAVAGNIN.

No. 20.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

July 9, 1894

Howard A. Davis (Charles F. Warwick, on the brief), for appellant.

Henry R. Edmunds, for appellee.

Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and GREEN, District Judge.

GREEN District Judge.

This is an appeal from the decree of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. It appears from the record that the Italian bark Giovanni was anchored near the breakwater in the Delaware river on the 7th of February, 1893, in the proper place for the anchorage of vessels, and outside the usual course of ships passing to and from the sea at that point, and while lying at anchor without apparent fault on her part, she was run into by the ship Standard and seriously injured. The Standard had left the port of Philadelphia that day in tow of the city ice boat No. 3, owned by the city of Philadelphia. She had been towed safely until she was brought very close to the Giovanni when, owing to peculiar maneuvers on the part of the city ice boat, the towing hawser parted, and as the Standard was, with the headway then on her, too close to the Giovanni successfully to change her course, the collision necessarily followed.

The night was clear and bright. Lights could be seen afar off. The wind, which was a good sailing breeze, was blowing down the river, and behind the Standard; and the tide had just turned, and was flowing upward. It is not disputed that the Giovanni was anchored upon a proper and safe anchorage ground; that all her lights were set and burning brightly and in all respects she appears, in this matter, free from the slightest blame. The tugboat charges the fault of the collision upon the ship Standard, but the evidence does not sustain this view of the case. It appears clear that the fault which caused the collision was that of the tug alone. The evidence shows that she ran down the river, in towing the Standard, very close indeed to the Giovanni, on a southerly course. Apparently, from her maneuver, discovering the Giovanni when she was at an exceedingly short distance from her, she suddenly turned squarely to the east,-- a maneuver which she was enabled to perform with great celerity, by the peculiar construction of her machinery. At the same time, owing to contradictory orders, the Standard put her wheel first hard a-port, and then immediately hard a-starboard. The result of the tug's change of direction was to draw the towing hawser sharply across the ship's bob stays, and from the unusual strain it parted. As soon as the Standard discovered this accident, she apparently did all she could to avoid the collision, but was unsuccessful, although it appears from the testimony that what she did do probably avoided a more serious accident. As is usual in cases of this character, there is great conflict in the testimony, especially as to the orders given upon the ship, to put her wheel first a-port and then to starboard; but the court below, after a careful consideration of the testimony, came to the conclusion that the ship did everything she could to avoid the collision.

It is quite clear, without discussing the point at any length, that the gross carelessness of the tug in directing her course and necessarily the course of the Standard, so close to the Giovanni as she did, before sighting her, is the sole cause of the collision...