Shields v. The Mayor, Alderman, etc.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1883
• Citation: 18 F. 748
• Parties: SHIELDS v. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, ETC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

18 F. 748

SHIELDS v. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, ETC.

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

December 19, 1883

J. A Hyland, for libelant.

Geo. P Andrews and T. B. Clarkson, for respondents.

BROWN J.

This action was brought to recover damages for an injury to the libelant's canal-boat, James S. Oakley, on the morning of November 20, 1880, by the steam-tug Municipal, at the end of pier 37, East river, at the foot of Market street. The Oakley had arrived that morning at 5 o'clock, with a cargo of coal consigned to that dock, and the captain, finding the slip full of boats, so that he could get no further inside moored on the lower side of the pier, with the bows of his boat projecting about 15 or 20 feet outside of the end of the pier into the river. At 6:20 A.M. the Municipal, a tug-boat in the employ of the respondents, came down the East river and stopped at the end of the pier for the purpose of taking on board laborers, as it had been her daily custom for sometime previous. In landing at the end of the pier she struck the libelant's boat a slight blow, from which some damage arose, for which this libel was filed. Though there was some dispute as to the time of the collision, it may be taken as fixed very near the hour of 6:20, as above stated. The sun rose that day at 6:57 and the morning was clear. Although it was not broad daylight, it was by no means dark when the Municipal came up, and the libelant's boat was perceived before the pier was reached. The tug was easily handled, and, with due care, might have been stopped in time to avoid the collision. The Municipal, therefore, cannot be exempted from responsibility. The Granite State, 3 Wall. 311; The Harry, 15 F. 161; The Nebraska, 2 Ben. 500; The Nellie, 7 Ben. 497.

As regards the alleged negligence of the Oakley it must be observed that there is no statute, nor custom, nor regulation of the port, which forbids vessels or canal-boats to be moored with their bows projecting beyond the ends of piers. Each case as it arises must therefore be determined according to its own circumstances, having reference to the necessities of the case arising from the particular location, its customary use and exposure to other vessels, and the obligation of the vessel thus mooring to exercise all reasonable prudence and precaution to avoid injury to herself and others in every situation.

In the case of The Canima, 17 F. 271, this court held it to be negligence in the owner of a canal-boat, after he had obtained a berth wholly within the slip, to move her partly outside for his own convenience, and leave her there unattended and exposed to the danger of collision with vessels coming to the pier. The case of The Baltic, 2 Ben. 452, was somewhat different. There, the tug-boat was lying at the end of the pier, with her stern projecting partly across the entrance of the ferry-slip and obstructing the entrance of the ferry-boats in a mode forbidden by law. BLATCHFORD, J., held her in fault on the ground that she had no right to lie in that position.

In the case of ...