Greenwood v. Town of Westport

• Decision Date: 23 January 1893
• Docket Number: 915,916.
• Citation: 53 F. 824
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: GREENWOOD et al. v. TOWN OF WESTPORT.

53 F. 824

GREENWOOD et al. v. TOWN OF WESTPORT.

Nos. 915, 916.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

January 23, 1893

Curtis Thompson, for defendant.

TOWNSEND District Judge.

The libel alleges that the steam barge Hebe was proceeding up Westport river laden with coal, about noon on October 26th and, when about three quarters of a mile from a certain drawbridge in the town of Westport, she commenced to give signals from her steam whistle that she was approaching and desired to pass through said draw, and repeated said signals until she had nearly reached said bridge, but that no attention was paid to said signals, and that, after being compelled to wait about an hour, the Hebe was caught by the ebb tide, struck the bottom, and sank. The libel further alleges that said drawbridge 'is a part of a public highway crossing public navigable waters of the United States; and that said drawbridge, as a public highway, is in the care control, and management of the said town of Westport. ' The defendant excepts to the libel on the following grounds namely: 'Because there are no allegations in the libel showing an express statutory liability, or any legal liability;' and because the allegations do not bring the case within the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty. In support of these exceptions defendant claims that, in the absence of state legislation, there is no obligation on the part of towns to open and close drawbridges, and that no statutory duty is imposed upon the town of Westport. It is further claimed that this bridge is not necessarily a nuisance, and that the commercial use of said Westport river, at the point where it is crossed by said bridge, is not such that it would justify the expense of the constant attendance of a man at said draw. Finally, it is claimed that a court of admiralty has jurisdiction of such cases only where there has been an actual collision, as in trespass at common law, and not where the damage claimed indirectly results from the injury, as in case.

The first claim under the exception seems to me to overlook the nature of the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty. The libel alleges negligence in the management of a drawbridge over a navigable stream, and damage suffered thereby. This constitutes a maritime tort. 'Admiralty has jurisdiction over damage done to a vessel on navigable water by a bridge or permanent structure. ' City of Boston v Crowley, 38 F. 204; Assante v. Bridge Co., 40 F. 767. And, if the defendant has undertaken to manage and control this drawbridge, it is liable for misfeasance, although it might not have been originally charged with the...