In re Myers Excursion & Navigation Co.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1893
• Citation: 57 F. 240
• Parties: In re MYERS EXCURSION & NAVIGATION CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

57 F. 240

In re MYERS EXCURSION & NAVIGATION CO.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

July 7, 1893

Wing Shoudy & Putnam, for petitioner.

Raphael J. Moses, Jr., Fernando Solinger, and George W. Cottrell, for respondents.

BENEDICT District Judge.

The barge Republic was hired, under an excursion contract made on March 2, 1891, to convey and excursion party to Cold Spring grove and back to New York on August 12, 1891, for the sum of $260. The barge, in pursuance of that contract, on that day took on board the excursion party, and was towed to Cold Spring grove by the steamboat Crystal Stream, owned by the same owners. Early in the afternoon the barge reached a wharf on the east side of the harbor at Cold Spring grove, where she was made fast to the end of the wharf, the port side of the barge being next to the wharf, and the Crystal Stream being fast to her upon her starboard side. Just as the barge was about to leave the wharf on the return trip, the excursionists being on board, but the lines not cast off, a thunderstorm came up from the westward, striking the barge on her starboard side. By the force of the wind, the roof of the hurricane deck on the starboard side was raised off its fastenings and doubled over against the two masts of the barge and the pilot house. The pilot house turned over, the two masts broke, and these masts, together with the broken portion of the hurricane deck, fell upon the other side of the hurricane deck, which was thereby crushed down upon the passengers collected underneath it, and 13 of the passengers were in this way killed. The owners of the barge, being sued for the injury to these passengers, filed their petition in this court to have their liability limited, and surrendered the barge to the custody of the court. In their petition they set up that the injuries to the passengers alluded to were not caused by any negligence on the part of those owning or in charge of the Republic, but to unavoidable accident.

The following objections are raised to the granting of the relief prayed by the petitioners:

First. That the Republic was not a vessel intended to be embraced in the limited liability acts. In my opinion, this objection is not well founded. As I understand the limited liability acts they were intended to relieve from liability barges engaged in any kind of navigation, and they cover the barge in question.

The next objection taken is that the tug Crystal Stream, being the motive power of the barge Republic, should also have been surrendered. This objection is without foundation. The petitioners do not seek to limit any liability they may be under as owners of the...