Hertz v. Consolidated Fisheries, 25940.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 25940.,25940. |
| Citation | 105 F. Supp. 948 |
| Parties | HERTZ v. CONSOLIDATED FISHERIES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Derby, Sharp, Quinby & Tweedt, San Francisco, Cal., for libelant.
Joseph L. Alioto, Walter F. Calcagno, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.
Libelant, owner and pilot of a 36-foot gas screw called the Diana Claire, seeks to recover damages from respondents, owners of a 55.8-foot fishing vessel called the Crescent which caused the sinking of the Diana Claire in a collision at sea.
During the trial, the parties agreed upon certain facts: The collision took place on a clear, windless day upon a calm sea. Both vessels were navigating on the high seas outside the Golden Gate and were subject to the regulations set forth in the International Rules of Navigation, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 61-141.
The Diana Claire was traveling at about 8 knots and was unencumbered. The Crescent was making about 2 knots and was encumbered with a dragline pulling about 5,000 pounds, plus the weight of the fish in the net.
The Diana Claire was moving in a southeasterly direction and the Crescent was navigating in a westerly direction as the vessels approached on crossing courses. The angle of the convergence was from 40° to 45°, with the Diana Claire on the starboard side of the Crescent before the collision and the Crescent off the port bow of the Diana Claire. The Diana Claire was navigating through an automatic pilot and never changed course prior to the collision.
The Captain of the Crescent reversed his vessel when the two boats were within 100 feet or less of one another. He did not change course. He first noted or heeded the Diana Claire when the two boats were a maximum of 200 yards apart.
The impact between the vessels caused no appreciable damage to the Crescent. It made a hole in the Diana Claire which permitted water to enter rapidly until the vessel sank.
The parties dispute certain other facts. For example, the libelant testified that he placed the Diana Claire's engines in reverse shortly before the collision but did not succeed in taking the way off the vessel in time to avoid the collision. The Captain of the Crescent refused to admit that libelant made any effort to place the boat in reverse. Libelant testified that he first saw the Crescent when the two vessels were three-quarters of a mile apart. The record contains other testimony indicating that perhaps the boats were separated by not more than a half mile of water when the Captain of the Diana Claire first saw the Crescent. The pilot of the latter questions whether the Captain of the Diana Claire saw the Crescent at any time before the collision. There are other points of difference between the litigants but most of the basic facts are not in dispute. From the events which admittedly transpired (and despite the several conflicts in the narrative of events), the Court is able to reconstruct the accident with sufficient clarity to apply the appropriate law and to fix liability.
Libelant contends that the accident is governed by Articles 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the International Rules, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 104, 106-108, which articles deal with a crossing situation such as that which occurred in the instant case. The vessel which has the right of way is known as "privileged," while the vessel which must give way is known as "burdened." The vessel having the other on her starboard hand is the burdened vessel. Thus, the Crescent was the burdened vessel and the Diana Claire was privileged.
Respondents assert that a privileged vessel may not hold tenaciously to its privilege when such course means a collision. The navigator of a vessel must exercise some judgment and maneuver his vessel in order to avoid accidents. Despite her privilege, she will be held liable if she fails to take steps necessary to prevent a collision. The Tenadores, 2 Cir., 298 F. 740; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. The Carolina
...F.Supp. 769; The Mary H., D.C., 67 F.Supp. 335; Manhattan Lighterage Corp. v. United States, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 274; Hertz v. Consolidated Fisheries, D.C., 105 F.Supp. 948; In re Adams Petition, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 110; Pure Oil Co. v. The F. B. Walker, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 867; Chicago, Burlingt......