Long Island R. Co. v. Killien
| Decision Date | 16 April 1895 |
| Citation | 67 F. 365 |
| Parties | LONG ISLAND R. CO. et al. v. KILLIEN |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
This was a libel in personam by Mary Killien, as administratrix of Martin Killien, her husband, to recover damages under the New York statute for the death of the deceased, who was a fireman on the tugboat William H. Walker, on the afternoon of June 13, 1893, through an alleged negligent collision between the Walker, owned by the respondent Hyde, and the ferryboat Garden City, owned by the respondent the Long Island Railroad Company. The district court found that both vessels were in fault for the collision, and entered a decree against both for $5,000, being the full amount allowed by the statute. 63 F. 172. The collision occurred on the East river, from 200 to 300 feet off the New York docks, about opposite the marble yard, just below the turn of Corlear's Hook. The weather was clear and pleasant; the tide, strong flood. Both boats were going down river,-- the Garden City, on one of her regular trips from Hunter's Point to James' slip; the Walker, going down under one bell, near the docks, looking for a job. About 200 feet in front of them was the transfer tug No. 5, also going down. All three boats had come to a stop, just above the Grand Street ferry, for two ferryboats of that line on the New York side, one coming out of that ferry, and another going in. At that time the Garden City was a little outside of the Walker, and about 200 feet astern of her. As soon as the inward-bound ferryboat at the Grand Street ferry would permit them to pass, the three boats started ahead, the Garden City sheering at first somewhat outwards into the river, but soon putting her wheel to port and turning her head down the river. When the tug reached Corlear's Hook, and emerged from the eddy into the flood tide, she lost control of her movements, and took a sheer of about 100 feet to port, striking the Garden City, and causing the death of libelant's husband.
William J. Kelly, for appellants.
E. H Taft and T. M. Taft, for appellee.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
We agree substantially with the opinion of the district judge in regard to the facts of the collision out of which this suit arises. The appellant's ferryboat, the Garden City, had nearly overtaken the tug Walker, and was about to pass her on her port side, upon a course not more than one hundred feet away from her, when the tug, as she emerged from the eddy into the flood tide at Corlear's Hook, lost control of her movements, and was swept by the strong current against the starboard side of the Garden City. That the tug was improperly navigated is clear. In rounding the Hook on such a course as the tug took, when there is a flood tide, a strong cross current is encountered as soon as a vessel passes out of the eddy into the true tide, which will sheer the vessel to port. The tendency to such a sheer is to be anticipated, and is usually neutralized by keeping the vessel sufficiently under a port wheel. The tug on the occasion in question was temporarily in charge of an incompetent wheelsman; and either because he neglected to port his wheel in due season, or to do so sufficiently, she took a rank sheer, and he lost command of her movements. We fully agree with the district judge that the tug was in fault for the collision. We are unable, however, to agree with his conclusion that the ferryboat was also in fault. The master of the Garden City was at the wheel of his vessel, as was also a wheelsman. They were watching the movements of the tug. There was ample room to enable the Garden City to pass the tug safely on her port side, no vessels were approaching to embarrass her in the effort to do so, and there was no conceivable reason why her master should attempt to direct the course of his vessel dangerously near to that of the tug. The sheer of the tug was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. Trawler Sea-Rambler
...upon an overtaking vessel the obligation of anticipating improper navigation on the part of the other vessel. Long Island R. R. Co. v. Killien, 67 F. 365, 14 C.C.A. 418. See also United States v. S. S. Soya Atlantic, 330 F.2d 732, 735 (4th Cir. 1964); Bloomfield Steamship Co. v. Brownsville......
-
Christensen v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... c., 11 S.W ... 279; Barkley v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 96 Md. 367; Long ... Island Rd. Co. et al., v. Killien, 67 F. 365; ... Cincinnati N. O. & T. P. v. Mealer, 50 ... ...
-
P. Dougherty Co. v. United States
...S.Ct. 794, 35 L.Ed. 453. 4 Cleary Bros. v. Port Reading R. Co. (The Wyomissing), 2 Cir., 1928, 29 F.2d 495, 498. 5 Long Island R. Co. v. Killien, 2 Cir., 1895, 67 F. 365, 367. There a vessel which violated a state statute requiring it to navigate as nearly as possible in the center of the E......
-
National Iranian Tanker Co.(Nederland), NV v. Tug Dalzell 2
...Cir. 1934); The Perseverance, 63 F.2d 788 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 289 U.S. 744, 53 S.Ct. 692, 77 L.Ed. 1490 (1933); Long Island R. Co. v. Killien, 67 F. 365 (2d Cir. 1895); Arundel Corp. v. The City of Calcutta, 172 F.Supp. 593, 596 (E.D.N.Y.1958); see also The Richard J. Barnes, 111 F.2d ......