Gratsos v. The Moisie Bay

• Decision Date: 07 March 1961
• Docket Number: No. 8176.,8176.
• Citation: 287 F.2d 706
• Parties: Constantine G. GRATSOS, Owner of the Steamship Audrey, libellant, Appellant, v. THE Steamship MOISIE BAY, in rem, and Gorrisen & Klaveness, A/S, Owner and/or operator of the Steamship Moisie Bay, in personam, respondents, Appellees. SKIBS AKTIESELSKAPET ORENOR, as Owner of the Steamship Moisie Bay, and Tank Ore Corporation, libellants, Appellees, v. THE Steamship AUDREY, her engines, boilers, etc., and Constantine G. Gratsos, her owner, respondents, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

287 F.2d 706 (1961)

Constantine G. GRATSOS, Owner of the Steamship Audrey, libellant, Appellant, v. THE Steamship MOISIE BAY, in rem, and Gorrisen & Klaveness, A/S, Owner and/or operator of the Steamship Moisie Bay, in personam, respondents, Appellees.

SKIBS AKTIESELSKAPET ORENOR, as Owner of the Steamship Moisie Bay, and Tank Ore Corporation, libellants, Appellees, v. THE Steamship AUDREY, her engines, boilers, etc., and Constantine G. Gratsos, her owner, respondents, Appellants.

No. 8176.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued November 17, 1960.

Decided March 7, 1961.

Eugene Underwood, New York City (R. Arthur Jett, Norfolk, Va., and H. Barton Williams, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.

John F. Gerity and Hugh S. Meredith, Norfolk, Va. (William E. Fuller, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellees.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Circuit Judge, and HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On the evening of March 24, 1957, at approximately 2021 hours, during darkness and clear weather, with visibility good, wind moderate and tide ebb, a collision occurred between the Steamships Moisie Bay and Audrey in the vicinity of the approach to the Maryland Pilot Station off Cape Henry, Virginia. In separate libels each vessel charged that the collision was attributable wholly to the fault or negligence of the other. The proceedings were consolidated and the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held the Audrey solely at fault. The facts, as found, and the District Court's conclusions are fully disclosed in its opinion and supplemental memorandum.¹

It is well settled that, on review of the judgment of the District Court sitting in admiralty without a jury, this court should not disturb findings unless clearly erroneous, that is, unless on the entire evidence we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20. Entertaining no such conviction here and being of the opinion that the trial judge correctly interpreted and applied the law, we affirm.

Unfortunately, the Audrey labors under the terrific burden of a finding, clearly supported by substantial evidence, that her engine log book, which should contain an accurate statement of certain events occurring prior to and leading up to the collision, was intentionally and fraudulently fabricated. We strongly favor the invocation of the principle "that intentional falsification of material records presumptively destroys the weight of the offender's evidence as to the entire case."² The trial judge made the additional statement, of which we approve, as follows:

"While there are many inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Audrey\'s testimony, these only point significantly to a continuation of efforts to conceal the true facts. To detail the theory of the Audrey\'s case would unduly emphasize the fraud, and perhaps lend dignity to the fraudulent scheme."³

The Audrey complains that the District Court apparently predicated its decision upon the log book fraud and wholly failed to specify wherein she was guilty of any infraction of the Rules. But it is conceded that the Audrey was the "burdened" vessel in this crossing situation, with the duty to keep out of the way and to avoid crossing ahead of the Moisie Bay. The "privileged" vessel was the Moisie Bay whose duty it was to maintain her course and speed. It is implicit in the trial court's findings that the Audrey, disregarding her duty and obligation, set her course after leaving the vicinity of the Virginia Pilot Station and created a crossing situation, with the possibility of collision, which course was maintained without deviation until collision was imminent and at a time when it was too late to act effectively to prevent or avoid disaster.

On the credible evidence the court found certain facts which may be briefly reviewed. The Audrey was...