Shasta SS Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 2117.

Decision Date15 April 1942
Docket NumberNo. 2117.,2117.
PartiesSHASTA S. S. CO., Inc., v. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of New York

Sanders, Hamilton, Dobmeier, Connelly & McMahon, of Buffalo, N. Y. (George Clinton, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for libellant.

McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart and George William Cottrell, all of Cleveland, Ohio (C. A. Schipfer, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for respondent.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This is an action in admiralty arising out of a collision between the steamer Shasta and the easterly span of the Jefferson Avenue Bridge across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, causing damage to the steamer Shasta.

On August 29, 1940, the steamer Shasta, a bulk freighter 383 feet long by 50 feet beam and 28 feet molded depth, was lying at anchor under the breakwater at Cleveland, Ohio. She was laden with iron ore and was drawing 20 feet 6 inches of water both forward and aft. The Shasta was awaiting her turn to go up the Cuyahoga River to the Corrigan-McKinney Steel Plant, which plant is above the Jefferson Avenue Bridge over the Cuyahoga River. This bridge had broken down about two weeks previous to August 29, 1940, so that while the west leaf of this double lift bridge could be lifted to a perpendicular position, the east leaf could not be lifted and was stuck in a position which was about 25° above the horizontal. The effect of this was to narrow the space through which vessels could pass when proceeding up or down the river by about one-half. The distance across the river from each abutment of the bridge to the other was about 130 feet, so that the available space for the passage of vessels on August 29, 1940, was about 65 to 70 feet.

The Shasta had arrived at the Cleveland breakwater about 3:20 P. M., and after obtaining the services of the tug Indiana belonging to the respondent proceeded slowly up the Cuyahoga River in a southerly direction bound for the dock at which she was to discharge her cargo. The Shasta assisted the tug Indiana during the trip up by using her engines, and they arrived in the vicinity of the Jefferson Avenue Bridge about 10 P. M. on August 29, 1940. About 800 feet below the Jefferson Avenue Bridge, the tug Nebraska, also belonging to the respondent, by prearrangement, took a line from the stern of the Shasta. From the time the Nebraska took her stern line, the Shasta's engines were stopped until shortly before the collision with the easterly leaf of the Jefferson Avenue Bridge. The Shasta had proceeded about one-half way through the draw safely when a situation arose which is the subject of some dispute in the evidence.

The libellant contends that the tugs of the respondent placed the Shasta in a hazardous position. Further, the libellant contends that, when the Shasta was about three-fourths of the way through the draw, the bow tug Indiana started to pull the bow of the Shasta to the starboard swinging the stern to port toward the broken leaf of the bridge; that the master and mate of the Shasta shouted a warning to the Indiana to stop pulling but received no response from the bow tug Indiana either by word or act. The master of the Shasta then blew a five whistle danger blast which was disregarded by the tugs until it was too late to avoid a collision with the broken leaf of the bridge. The captain of the Shasta then reversed his engines in an attempt to minimize the force of the impending collision with the east leaf of the bridge. It is the libellant's contention that if the action of the captain was not proper it was due to the circumstances in which he found himself as a result of the actions of the servants of the respondent and that any error in judgment was due to the extremely dangerous position in which the servants of the respondent had placed him.

The respondent, on the other hand, contends that its servants were competent and that they were performing their duties in a competent manner and that there was no danger; that the captain of the Shasta gave the tugs a strong ahead signal followed by a stop signal; that the captain of the Shasta attempted to divest the control from the tugs by reversing his engines and such action did wrest control from the tugs and thus caused the collision which damaged the Shasta; that all the actions of the captain of the Shasta were wrongful and endangered the entire operation and did result in a collision which the tugs of the respondent attempted to avert, but because of the action of the captain of the Shasta they were frustrated and the collision resulted and the damage sustained.

The respondent further contends that the stern tug, Nebraska, had her tow line taut at all times and was shoving hard to shove the stern of the Shasta over to the west abutment as the Shasta was going through the draw, except during the interval of time during which the steamer Shasta backed her engine, which backing of the engine caused the tug to be thrown out of position by the suction of the Shasta's propeller. The bow tug Indiana was pulling slightly to the starboard when the Shasta blew four short blasts of the whistle and in response thereto the tug Indiana pulled strong ahead for about 10 seconds when she stopped because of a one blast whistle from the Shasta. The respondent claims that this pulling had no effect as the time was too short. The respondent also claims that the Shasta backed her engine before she blew any signals whatsoever and that such backing threw the stern tug out of position and made her ineffective; that the entire fault for the collision is on the captain of the Shasta because he gave improper signals and reversed his engines which caused the collision which damaged the Shasta.

The libellant asks damages and the respondent for a dismissal of the libellant's action.

Findings of Fact.

I. The bow of the Shasta was drifting to port when she was one-half to three-fourths through the draw and the bow tug Indiana was pulling to the starboard. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bisso v. Waterways Transportation Company, 15464.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 20, 1956
    ...professional skill of these towers. The Inca, 5 Cir., 148 F. 363, 365; The Algic, supra; Shasta Steamship Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., D.C.W.D.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 572, 574, 1943 A.M.C. 1205; The Severance, 4 Cir., 152 F.2d 916, 1946 A.M.C. 128; McWilliams Bros. v. Director General of Railroa......
  • Woolard v. Dist. Of D.C..
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • December 10, 1948
    ...W. T. Cowan, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 61 A.2d 624. 7Bernhardt v. City & S. R. Co., 49 App.D.C. 265, 263 F. 1009; Shasta S. S. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., D.C.W.D.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 572; In re Trustees System Co. of Louisville, D.C.W.D.Ky., 30 F.Supp. 361; 2 Wigmore, Evidence, § 290 (3rd ...
  • Harry v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 13, 1963
    ...88 (1903); Ruete v. Elwell, 15 App.D.C. 21 (1899); Boyer v. The Merry Queen, 202 F.2d 575 (3d Cir., 1953); Shasta S.S. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 44 F.Supp. 572 (D. N.Y.1942). It is significant that in Shasta, supra, the trial court made a finding of fact that the absence of the witness......
1 books & journal articles
  • Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 1-03, March 1978
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 361 Mo. 458, 465-66, 235 S.W.2d 322, 327-28 (1950). See also Shasta S.S. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 44 F. Supp. 572 (W.D.N.Y. 1942) (Counsel stipulated he "had no objection . . . to the reasons given . . . for the nonproduction"; equivalent to proof by the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT