Pratt v. The Havilah
| Decision Date | 18 January 1892 |
| Parties | THE HAVILAH. v. THE HAVILAH. PRATT |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Henry D. Hotchkiss and Robert D. Benedict, for appellants.
Henry Arden, for appellee.
Before Wallace and Lacombe, Circuit Judges.
On the morning of December 9, 1887, a collision occurred in Long Island sound, a few miles to the westward of Faulkner's island light, between the libelant's schooner, Helen Augusta, and the brig Havilah. The schooner was sailing before the collision, by the wind, on a course about east by north on the port tack, the wind being about north-northeast the brig was sailing west-half-north, having the wind free. The vessels sighted each other just at the break of dawn, the breeze was moderate, the weather clear and good for seeing lights, and both vessels had their regulation lights burning. The brig struck the schooner on the starboard side, a little forward of the mainmast, and she went down soon after. The district court held the brig solely in fault for the collision. This decision was affirmed in the circuit court and the claimants have appealed to this court.
We have reached the same conclusion as the district judge on this branch of the case, but the facts are so elaborately and carefully discussed in his opinion that it is unnecessary to rehearse them. As the brig was sailing free, and the schooner closehauled on the wind, the former is to be held responsible unless the collision was brought about by inevitable accident or by some fault of the schooner. Of inevitable accident there is no suggestion. It is claimed, however, that the schooner changed her course to the northward and thus misled those who were in charge of the navigation of the Havilah and that this charge was made, not in extremis, when collision was inevitable, but was itself the cause of the collision, which but for such change would not have happened. The witnesses for the schooner insist that no such change was made; that they saw the brig's red light for several minutes before the collision off the schooner's starboard bow, and apprehended no collision until the brig came near, supposing the latter would avoid her. If the course of the schooner and the bearing of the brig were as testified to by libelant's witnesses, the brig could at no time have seen the schooner's red light, and, as a persistent green light would have indicated a sailing vessel hauled on the wind, it would be the brig's duty to avoid her. This testimony is flatly contradicted by the second mate and the lookout of the brig, who insist that they first saw the red light of the schooner, and then, after a brief interval when no lights were seen, her green one.
The testimony of the opposing witnesses is wholly irreconcilable.
Error in those called from the brig, who did not see the light continuously, may be accounted for on the supposition that they mistook some other red light for that of the schooner; but if the evidence of those called from the schooner, who insist that they watched the brig's lights continuously till the time of collision, is false, it must be a deliberate fabrication. We concur with the district judge in believing that the schooner's witnesses told the truth when they asserted that, down to the time of collision, she exhibited to the brig only her green light; and that, except for a luffing up in the very jaws of the collision, there was no change of the schooner's course. For the resulting catastrophe, therefore, the brig is solely responsible.
There remains a question as to what is the measure of damage. There was a wide difference between the estimates of the witnesses who testified before the commissioner to the schooner's value before the collision. The weight of unbiased evidence however, is strongly in support of his finding that her value then was $3,800. Her cargo was coal, worth about $1,200. She was 22 years old, and sank 2 minutes after collision, in the open sound in 100 feet of water. The libel alleges that she became a total loss. After the decision of the district judge, hearings began before a commissioner to take proof of damages, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwood v. Town of Westport
... ... 59 F. 190, affirmed Id ... 192; Wiggins v ... 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; Weisenberg v ... Town of Winneconne, 56 Wis. 667, 14 N.W. 871 ... The ... The Thingvalla, supra; The Chatham, supra; The E. A. Packer, ... 49 F. 92; The Havana, 54 F. 201, and cases cited; The ... Havilah, 1 C. C. A. 519, 50 F. 331. In The Pennsylvania and ... The Bolivia, supra, it appeared that the violation of the ... statute was a fault, and that ... ...
-
Shaver Transp. Co. v. Columbia Contract Co.
... ... 1910); ... The Laura Lee, 24 F. 483 (Dist. Ct. E.D. La. 1885); The City ... of Alexandria, 40 F. 697 (Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y. 1889); The ... Havilah, 50 F. 331, 1 C.C.A. 519 (C.C.A.2d Cir. 1892); La ... Normandie, 58 F. 427, 7 C.C.A. 285 (C.C.A.2d Cir. 1893); ... The James Gray v. The John ... ...
-
O'Brien Bros. v. The Helen B. Moran, 84
...loss, actually or constructively, or by showing the extent and cost of the necessary repairs and the incidental expenses." In The Havilah, 2 Cir., 50 F. 331, in an opinion by Judge Lacombe, in which Judge Wallace concurred, this court held that where a vessel worth $3,800 was sunk and then ......
-
Rugo Const. Co. v. New England Foundation Co.
...loss to which interest may be added to afford complete indemnity. The Baltimore, supra; The Falcon, 19 Wall. 75, 79, 15 L.Ed. 43; The Havilah, 2 Cir., 50 F. 331. Mere evidence, however, that a damaged vessel is sunk is not enough to show that the vessel is a total loss. The Baltimore, supra......