Dentz v. The Fanwood
| Decision Date | 18 May 1894 |
| Citation | 61 F. 523 |
| Parties | THE FANWOOD. [1] v. THE FANWOOD. DENTZ et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
McCarthy & Berier, for libelants.
De forrest Bros., for claimants.
The Treush, going down the Hudson river about 150 feet distant from the end of the piers, came in contact with the ferryboat Fanwood as she was leaving her slip at Communipaw. When some 250 or 300 feet distant, signals of one whistle were exchanged, which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been in abundant time to enable the tug to keep out of the way of the Fanwood, as it was her duty to do, by stopping and going under the ferryboat's stern. But the tug's engine caught upon the center when when the order to reverse was given, and this was the primary cause of the accident. The pilot of the Fanwood, when about 125 feet from the tug gave the signal of three whistles. The tug gave no answer and, continuing on unchecked, her stem struck the port guard of the ferryboat at her forward hood, thereby doing herself some damage, for which the above libel was filed.
Assuming that the liability of an engine to catch on the center, and thus delay reversing, is unavoidable, it was the tug's fault, and at her risk, to proceed, without necessity, so near to the end of the piers and ferry slips, where, in case of this temporary disabling of her engine, she would not have either time or space for the performance of her duty to keep out of the way after the ferryboat was seen to be coming out of her slip. The pilot of the Treush, moreover, when he found that his engine was slow in reversing, and had caught upon the center, should have hailed the ferryboat, or given alarm whistles to indicate his disability. He would have done so had he not supposed, as he testifies, that the engine would get to working backwards in time to enable him to keep out of the Fanwood's way. For this reason, apparently, he did not even answer the alarm signals of the Fanwood. If the testimony of one of the witnesses for the libelants is correct,-- that 15 seconds was sufficient time for the engineer to pry the engine off the center, and get reversing,-- the captain was justified in his expectation and that the additional delay was the engineer's fault.
The libelants' testimony shows that the Fanwood, coming out of her slip under one bell at the speed she was making, could have come to a stop within an advance of 50 feet. As the alarm whistle of the Fanwood was given when she was 125 feet distance, this evidence (which has not been contradicted by the defendant) indicates that the Fanwood might have been brought to a stop before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carscallen v. Coeur D'Alene & St. Joe Transportation Co., Ltd.
... ... Bigley v. Williams , 80 Pa. 107; American ... Steamship Co. v. Landreth , 102 Pa. 131, 48 Am. Rep. 196; ... The Roman , 14 F. 61; The Fanwood , 61 F ... 523; Rogers v. McCune , 19 Mo. 557. As we view the ... evidence, however, it is unnecessary for us to determine ... whether or not ... ...
-
May v. HAMBURG-AMERIKANISCHE P. AKTIEN-GESELLSCHAFT
...admissible against the vessel, The Potomac (1869) 8 Wall. 590, 19 L. Ed. 511; The Lisbonense (C. C. A. 2d, 1892) 53 F. 293; The Fanwood (D. C. 1894) 61 F. 523; The Bellota (D. C.) 57 F.(2d) 264, 1928 A. M. C. 485, I find that they are sufficiently contradicted or explained by the captain's ......
-
THE W. TALBOT DODGE
...2 Curt. 329, Fed. Cas. No. 4,497; The Lisbonense, 53 F. 293, 3 C. C. A. 539; The S. S. Wilhelm, 59 F. 169, 8 C. C. A. 72; The Fanwood (D. C.) 61 F. 523; The Severn (D. C.) 113 F. 578; Frederick Leyland & Co. v. Hornblower, 256 F. 289, 296, 167 C. C. A. 461. The rule of these decisions is a ......
-
Casco Bay Lines v. The Laura, 28.
...a relatively large vessel to refrain from steaming at too close a proximity to pierheads. The Ralphie B., D.C., 64 F. Supp. 299; The Fanwood, D.C., 61 F. 523; The John I. Clark, 199 F. 981; The James P. McGuirl, D.C., 225 F. 662; The Supply No. 4, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d It is the opinion of the C......