Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey
| Decision Date | 24 June 1892 |
| Citation | 59 F. 190 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robinson Bright, Biddle & Ward, for libelant.
De Forest & Weeks, for respondent.
On the 15th of November, 1891, at about 5:30 A. M., the scow Senate with a cargo of about 160 tons of brick, while proceeding up Newark bay in tow on a hawser from the steam tug Winnie, bound for Newark, in going through the westerly passage of the draw of the Central Railroad bridge came in contact with the chamfered end of the central abutment. The bow of the scow was square on deck, but sloping beneath. In the contact with the pier, a plank from its side was thrust through the bow of the boat below the water line about a foot inside of the sloping corner beam, which caused a leak, from which she sank soon after passing through the draw. The above libel was filed to recover the damages.
The libelants claim that this collision was not through any negligence of the tug, but through the negligence of the defendants in not opening the draw when signaled by the tug, and in compelling her to wait for a freight train, without giving her any answering signal to show their intention, thereby so embarrassing her in the handling of her tow, that, through the cross set of the tide, collision resulted, without any fault on the part of the libelants.
The evidence leaves no doubt that as respects the management of the tug, the signals given, and the trains passing, the account of the libelants is more accurate than that of the respondents. The defendants' evidence with regard to the passing of the trains, well illustrates how little reliance can be placed on the general recollection of persons in regard to ordinary occurrences under their immediate observation when their memory is not charged with the matter at the time. Several of the witnesses from the bridge testified most positively that no train went past within a couple of hours before the tug and tow went through, and that there was no detention or delay; whereas, it subsequently appeared, by incontrovertible evidence, that at least three trains had passed within an hour, and one of them at about the same time the tug captain stated.
The undoubted facts, therefore, are, that the tug, pursuing the usual course to go through the westerly passage of the draw gave the usual signal of three whistles when about half a mile distant. No answering signal being received, and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwood v. Town of Westport
...dangers involved which the law requires under such circumstances. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 59 F. 190, affirmed Id. 192; Wiggins Boddington, 3 Car. & P. 544; Blanchard v. Steamboat Co., 59 N.Y. 292; In re Pratt, 24 F. 335, 25 F. 799; Edgerton v. Mayor, 27 F. 230; ......
-
Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Masaba S. S. Co.
... ... Metropolitan Railroad ... Company, 123 F. 271, 273, 274, 59 C.C.A. 289; ... Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Central R. Co. (D.C.) 59 F ... 190, 192, per Judge Addison Brown, affirmed 59 F. 193, 8 ... ...
-
Donovan v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...train is known, and it is also known that the bridge can be opened and the train warned in time of its opening (see P. R. R. Co. v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J. D. C. 59 F. 190, affirmed C. C. A. 59 F. 192), and from those in which a vessel having given a proper signal and carefully proceedin......
-
Conners Marine Co. v. New York & Long Branch R. Co.
...go to the assistance of the vessel." In this case no answering signal was given from the bridge. In Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Central R. Co. of N. J., D. C.S.D.N.Y. 1892, 59 F. 190, affirmed D.C., 59 F. 192, it was held that the omission either to open the draw when the tug is at a reasonable ......