St. Louis & St. P. Packet Co. v. Keokuk & H. Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1887
• Citation: 31 F. 755
• Parties: ST. LOUIS & ST. PAUL PACKET CO. v. KEOKUK & HAMILTON BRIDGE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

31 F. 755

ST. LOUIS & ST. PAUL PACKET CO. v. KEOKUK & HAMILTON BRIDGE CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Iowa.

1887

Given Campbell and J. H. Anderson, for plaintiff.

James Hagerman, A. J. McCrary, and Frank Hagerman, for defendant.

LOVE J.

(charging jury.) The case before you is of very great importance. In addition to the large pecuniary interests directly involved, it presents questions of importance concerning the bridging and navigation of the Mississippi river. It therefore demands your most careful consideration. This is not a proceeding to declare the Keokuk and Hamilton bridge an unlawful structure, and to have it as such abated in the interests of the public. It is a private action for damages, in which the essential charge is negligence on the part of the defendant in the building of the bridge. 'Negligence' is the gravamen of the action; but this word, in its legal sense is very different from its received signification in common language. In common speech, the word 'negligence' is used as synonymous with 'carelessness,' but it has a much broader meaning in legal parlance. Thus the failure to exercise proper skill, where the law requires it, is negligence, though ever so much care be used in doing the act required. Any failure to perform a legal duty is negligence. The omission to do what the law requires, or the failure to do anything in the manner prescribed by law is negligence per se. It is in this sense that the plaintiff charges the defendant with negligence in the present case.

The Keokuk and Hamilton bridge is an authorized structure. The right to build it was granted by an act of congress. But the plaintiff charges that in several essential particulars the defendant failed to build the bridge prescribed by the act of congress, and in this committed negligence, causing the injury complained of. The plaintiff in this action is the owner of the steamer War Eagle, employed in the trade of the Mississippi between St. Louis and St. Paul. The defendant corporation is the proprietor of the draw-bridge over that river between Keokuk and Hamilton. The plaintiff claims damage to the amount of $50,000, resulting from a collision of the steamer with the bridge, by which the vessel was injured, and one span of the bridge destroyed. The bridge was built by authority of an act of congress, which, among other things, provides that, if any bridge built under said act be constructed as a draw-bridge, the same shall be erected as a pivot draw-bridge, with a draw over the main channel of the river, at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans of not less than 160 feet in length in the clear on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw; and that the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river. The War Eagle was one of the largest and most valuable boats in the navigation. She was thoroughly equipped and manned. The river was at a stage the highest ever known, except in the floods of 1861. The current at the point of contact with the bridge, about a quarter of a mile below the Des Moines rapids, was swift and strong. The boat was heavy-laden. She held her way along the outer wall of the government canal, which was closed at the time of the accident. This occurred on a night in November, in the year 1881, about 8 o'clock P.M. The night was not dark, but rather moonlight, and quite calm. The boat attempted to pass the draw on the Iowa side, bow foremost. Her bow was caught in an eddy within the draw, which turned her towards the Iowa shore. The pilot, after vain efforts by the usual and proper means to straighten her, seeing that she would be thrown upon the pier, and destroyed, backed her above the rest pier towards the Illinois shore; but the force of the current was so great that she could not be controlled. She was carried by the violence of the current against the bridge, east of the draw; one span of which gave way, and was destroyed. The boat floated through the broken span, and sunk a short distance below the bridge.

The plaintiff complains that the injury occurred in consequence of the negligence of the defendant in the construction of the bridge. It is alleged that the defendant, in locating the piers and building the bridge, failed to conform to the act of congress in the following particulars: (1) That the draw is not over the main channel of the river; (2) that it is not at an accessible and navigable point; (3) that the draws are not 160 feet in the clear, within the meaning of the act of congress; (4) that the piers are not placed parallel to the current of the river.

The defendant, upon its part, denies the truth of these allegations, and takes issue upon the same. And the defendant, by way of cross-claim, sets up that, while the bridge was constructed in all respects as required by the law of congress, the accident and injury were the result of the plaintiff's own negligence and want of skill in the navigation and passage of the draw; and the defendant, therefore, prays judgment for the sum of $100,000, growing out of the injury to the bridge.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the main channel of the river is coincident with the habitual course of navigating vessels, and that the evidence shows that the draw of the bridge is not over the 'main channel,' as thus indicated. But this argument proceeds upon a mistaken construction of the statute. It is clear that the words 'main channel' in the statute do not mean the habitual and best course of navigation, although they may be employed in that sense by pilots and other boatmen. If the words were used to indicate the best course of navigation which is habitually followed by steam-boats and other water-craft, the provision that the draw shall be at a point 'accessible and navigable' would be quite superfluous and senseless, since that line of navigation must necessarily be always 'accessible and navigable.' It would have been most unwise in congress to prescribe so strict a limit for the place of the draw. The deepest water and best currents habitually pursued by steam-boats are sometimes found close to the shore, where it might be difficult or impossible to place the draw of a bridge. The act of congress is of a general nature, providing for the building of all bridges upon the river. Now, it might be necessary to locate the draw of a bridge with reference to a canal or other work of the government for the improvement of navigation, and this might be difficult or impossible, if it were required absolutely that the draw should be placed over the usual path of steamers and other water-craft. This was the case with the bridge before us. The draw was established with reference to the plan of the government canal, after consulting with the government officials in charge of that work.

What is the 'main channel' of a river? It may be difficult to define it with precision, but I think it sufficient to say that the main channel is that bed of a river over which the principal volume of water flows. Many great rivers discharge themselves into the sea through more than one channel. This is true of the Nile, the Ganges, the Indus, the Volga, the Danube, the Amazon, the Mississippi, and many others. They all, however, have a main channel, through which the principal volume of water passes. So, in their upper course, great rivers are at many places broken into different channels by interposed islands, but there is generally a channel where the principal river flows. Now, it was the manifest purpose of congress that the draw of a bridge should not be placed over any of the smaller or inferior channels, but over the principal river, where boats would have most room to maneuver in passing the structure; and it was an adequate limitation that the draw should be at a point 'accessible and navigable.' If this was accomplished, what more could be desired?

Again it is insisted that the open spaces between the draw-piers must be 160 feet at right angles with the current, and that, if the bridge was built not parallel to the current, so that the flow of the water is diagonally through the draw, forming a cross-current, then the measurement must be at right angles across the current, and not a right angles to the walls of the draw-piers. I...