Gulf Oil Corporation v. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, Civ. No. 6135.

Decision Date24 April 1970
Docket NumberCiv. No. 6135.
PartiesGULF OIL CORPORATION, as Owner, Pro Hac Vice, of the STEAMSHIP GULFSPRAY, Plaintiff, v. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone

Burlingham, Underwood, Wright, White & Lord, New York City, for plaintiff; Joseph C. Smith, New York City, Decastro & Robles, Balboa, Canal Zone, of counsel.

Dwight A. McKabney, Balboa Heights, Canal Zone, for defendant; John L. Haines, Jr., Balboa Heights, Canal Zone, of counsel.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CROWE, District Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this action, the plaintiff, Gulf Oil Corporation, was and still is a corporation organized and existing under and by the virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was at all times alleged in the complaint the owner, pro hac vice, of the Steamship GULFSPRAY, a vessel of the United States of America registry, of 18,776 gross tons, 12,215 net tons, 644 feet overall length, beam 84 feet, built by Bethlehem Steel Company and delivered to her owner in 1960. At the time she arrived at the Port of Cristobal on April 2, 1966 for transit of the Panama Canal she was tight, staunch, and strong, and in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, officered, equipped and supplied.

2. The defendant, Panama Canal Company, is and at all times material to this action was a corporate agency and instrumentality of the Government of the United States of America created by Act of Congress of June 29, 1948 (c. 706, sec. 2, 62 Stat. 1076, as amended by the Act of September 26, 1950 c. 1049, sec. 5, et seq., 64 Stat. 1041) and currently appears as revised and codified by the Act of October 18, 1962 (P. L. 87-845, 76A Stat. 1 et seq.). The charter provisions of the Panama Canal Company are currently contained in 2 CZC, Sections 61 through 75 and 121 through 123, 76A Stat. 8-15, permitting the Panama Canal Company to sue and be sued in its corporate name. One of its business functions is to operate the Panama Canal.

3. On the morning of April 2, 1966, GULFSPRAY arrived at Cristobal for a southbound transit of the Canal, and pursuant to regulations published in 35 CFR 4.22 (now 35 CFR 105.1), two Panama Canal Company pilots were placed aboard by defendant, as is the custom and practice for vessels the size of the GULFSPRAY, and at all times thereafter one or the other was in control of the navigation and movements of the vessel during the transit of the canal and until she anchored in Balboa Harbor in the evening of the same day, as required by 35 CFR 4.27 (now 35 CFR 105.6).

4. The first half control pilot was August J. C. Egle, a master mariner and qualified Panama Canal Company pilot who was relieved by the second half control pilot, Louis Harrell Hixon, similarly qualified, at Chagres Crossing. Captain Hixon had control of the vessel's navigation and movements from there and during the turn from Balboa Reach in the Pacific entrance channel into the Balboa anchorage.

5. GULFSPRAY was last drydocked at Yokohama, Japan, in February 1966, and her underwater body, including her rudder and appurtenant equipment, was examined by her Master, Chief Engineer, and Chief Officer and found to be undamaged and in proper working condition. After leaving the drydock she returned to Port Arthur, Texas, transiting the Panama Canal in March 1966 en route. Loading a part cargo of jet fuel on an MSTS charter, she proceeded from Port Arthur, Texas, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where she completed loading her cargo, thence sailed once again for Japan via the Panama Canal, arriving at the Cristobal Bar at 0600, April 2, 1966. There is no evidence that the vessel experienced any difficulty with her steering gear prior to her arrival at Cristobal or at any time until she proceeded outbound in the Pacific channel in the early morning of April 3, 1966, after taking bunkers at Balboa.

6. GULFSPRAY is equipped with a gyrocompass, automatic pilot (original equipment), course recorder with a graph (installed in April 1965) for making a continuous record of the headings and courses steered by the vessel and the time. The vessel may be steered by auto pilot, manually by hand electric steering, or by a separate wheel activating a hydraulic telemotor system. The automatic pilot was used to steer the vessel in the open sea when weather conditions did not require more than 10 degree rudder angle in either direction to maintain the desired course, that being the maximum angle which can be applied automatically. GULFSPRAY was steered by automatic pilot from the Mississippi Delta until one hour before her arrival at the Cristobal Bar on April 2, 1966 when her Master ordered the steering shifted to telemotor, the most reliable system for navigating in restricted waters. Her course recorder graph trace between the Delta and Cristobal was made while the vessel was steered by the automatic pilot.

7. A rudder angle indicator is located on the forward bulkhead of the wheel house immediately to the right of the window customarily used by the person in charge of her navigation. The dial, about 8 inches in diameter, may be illuminated in darkness. It would be readily visible to a person standing in the window to the left and by the wheelsman. It was in good working order on arrival at the Cristobal Bar and continued to show the corresponding rudder angle as ordered by those in charge of her navigation during the transit and until she cleared the Miraflores Locks, proceeding south in the Pacific channel.

8. The transit between Cristobal and the Pacific channel was made without incident. Her course recorder graph shows no unusual movements to indicate a sheer or difficulty in controlling her movements. Captain Forrest, her Master, who remained on the bridge continuously during transit, except for personal necessity, and who has 10 years' experience as Master on GULFSPRAY and two of her sister ships, testified at the trial that the vessel was a good steering ship and that the transit of the canal from Cristobal to Miraflores Locks was without incident. All of her quartermasters, helmsmen, and deck officers testified by deposition in April of 1966, two weeks after the transit, to the same effect. The Ship's Condition Report, a Panama Canal Company form filled out by Captain Egle after the transit showed that her steering was satisfactory during the transit. Neither Captain Egle nor Captain Hixon complained to GULFSPRAY's Master about her steering during the transit. While crossing Gatun Lake, Captain Egle testified that the vessel required from 5 degrees to 10 degrees of right rudder at various times to maintain a steady course. He mentioned to her quartermaster that the vessel was carrying right wheel, and was advised that the GULFSPRAY always tended to carry right rudder because of her right hand propeller.

9. Leaving Miraflores Locks, Captain Hixon was advised by Balboa Control that it would be necessary to await clearance of two northbound vessels from Balboa Harbor before GULFSPRAY could obtain a tug for her maneuver from the channel into Balboa anchorage. As GULFSPRAY proceeded slowly southbound in the Balboa Reach with about a one-knot ebb tide underfoot, she was well to her own starboard side of the channel on the southbound sailing line or range to allow the two northbound vessels to swing out of Balboa Harbor into the channel for port-to-port passing.

10. The southbound sailing line in Balboa Reach has a heading of 160 degrees 35 minutes true, is marked by range markers and lights which are visible day and night, and lies 150 feet from, and parallel to, the west prism line of the Canal channel. The northbound sailing line is the reciprocal heading and is located 150 feet from the east prism line of the 500-foot wide reach.

11. When number 26 red buoy was abeam to port, Captain Hixon ordered the wheel hard left and the engines slow ahead (1835 Bridge Bell Book time). Her speed over the bottom was 3 to 4 knots, and at 1835½ (Bridge Bell Book time) her engine was stopped. At 1836½ (Bridge Bell Book time) her engine was ordered full astern and stopped at 1839½ (Bridge Bell Book time). Her heading had changed rapidly from the channel course of 160 degrees to about 120 degrees on the hard left rudder and then abruptly decelerated between 120 and 112 degrees. Her rudder was ordered amidships but the rudder angle indicator did not respond when the wheel was put in the amidship position, being unaccountably stuck at full left rudder for about 30 to 60 seconds before it returned to 0 degrees rudder angle. The engine room was notified, but a check of the steering gear revealed no apparent damage or malfunction.

12. GULFSPRAY's position when the rudder indicator failed to return to the midship (0 degrees) position was established by Captains Egle and Forrest as being north of beacon 21 on a heading between 106-130 degrees. Captain Forrest, standing on the port wing of the bridge at the forward side observed that the northbound sailing line ranges were lined up, which placed GULFSPRAY's bridge about 350 feet from the west prism line of the channel. The distance from the forward side of the bridge to the after end or trailing edge of the rudder is about 398 feet. At this angle and position GULFSPRAY's rudder was outside the channel in contact with the steep bank immediately contiguous to the 45-foot dredged channel.

13. At about 1839-40 hours (Bridge Bell Book time) GULFSPRAY's rudder was forced,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Gulf Oil Corporation v. Panama Canal Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 29, 1973
    ...Oil Corp. v. Panama Canal Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 24, 1969 A.M.C. 1, reversing, D.C.Z., 196, 269 F. Supp. 793; Gulfspray II: 5 Cir., 1970, 311 F.Supp. 1307. 3 See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F. 2d 4 Canal Company's cross appeal attacks the trial co......
  • Natalie Tankships Corp. v. PANAMA CANAL COM'N, Civ. No. 79-0354-B.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone
    • December 18, 1980
    ...treatment of this section see Gulf Oil Corp. v. Panama Canal Co., 407 F.2d 24, 1969 A.M.C. 1 (5th Cir. 1969) (Gulfspray I), on remand 311 F.Supp. 1307, aff. 437 F.2d 111 (Gulfspray II), supplemented 335 F.Supp. 406, modified 481 F.2d 561, n.9 at 566, 1973 A.M.C. 1582, n.9 at 1586-87, (5th C......
  • Gulf Oil Corporation v. Panama Canal Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone
    • December 29, 1971
    ...while under the control of defendant's pilot. The question of liability for the accident having been resolved against the Canal Company, 311 F.Supp. 1307 (D.C.Z.1970), aff'd 437 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1971), the case came on for trial on the question of the quantum of damages to which Gulf is F......
  • King v. Cox, Civ. A. No. 70-C-18-A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • April 29, 1970
    ... ... pursuant to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the City of Bristol, imposed on the 12th ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT