ST Tringali Co. v. Tug Pemex XV
| Decision Date | 17 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-B-8.,65-B-8. |
| Citation | 274 F. Supp. 227 |
| Parties | S. T. TRINGALI CO., Inc. v. The TUG PEMEX XV, her engines, tackle, furniture and appurtenances, in rem, and Petroleos Mexicanos, her Owner, in personam. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Cox, Wilson, Duncan & Clendenin (Tom Clendenin, Jr.), Brownsville, Tex., for libellant.
Hardy & Sharpe, (Benjamin S. Hardy), Brownsville, Tex., for respondent.
This is a suit for damages, brought by S. T. Tringali Co., Inc., as owner of the O/S JO-FRANCES, a shrimp trawler, that it claims was damaged when it was in a collision with the Tug PEMEX XV and its barge that it had in tow.
The case was tried before the Court on August 24, 1967, and live witnesses were heard and the depositions of others were introduced. Briefs have been filed by the parties, and the case is now ready for decision by this Court.
The O/S JO-FRANCES is a 61.6 foot shrimp trawler owned by S. T. Tringali Co., Inc., a Florida corporation.
The PEMEX XV, a tug, and the PEMEX BARGE 494 at all times material to this cause were owned by Petroleos Mexicanos, a government-owned corporation of the Republic of Mexico, which is engaged in commercial production and sale of petroleum products, and was not performing a governmental function at the time of the collision in question.
On April 14, 1964, at approximately 16.05 hours, the PEMEX XV with one barge in long tow set sail from the Port of Campeche, Mexico, for the Port of Minatitlan in the State of Vera Cruz, Mexico. The tug and its tow were proceeding upon a course of 241 degrees true with uneventful sailing until approximately 21.30 hours when a fishing vessel (which later turned out to be the O/S JO-FRANCES) was sighted 30 degrees on the port bow of the PEMEX XV.
At the time the JO-FRANCES was sighted, it was traveling on a parallel course with the PEMEX XV and tow until a green side light began to show on the JO-FRANCES, which indicated that her course was changing to starboard.
Upon noticing the change of course of the JO-FRANCES, the officer on watch ordered the course of the PEMEX XV and its tow changed to 271 degrees true, which would enable the PEMEX XV and its tow to steer clear of the JO-FRANCES.
The JO-FRANCES made a complete turn to starboard and was then meeting the PEMEX XV and tow in a port to port passing situation, and passed the PEMEX XV on the port side at approximately one-fourth of a mile distant.
After the JO-FRANCES passed the PEMEX XV, the Captain of the JO-FRANCES changed his course suddenly to port, and collided with the PEMEX BARGE 494 at approximately 22.21 hours.
The collision took place in international waters about thirty miles off the Mexican coast at an estimated position of Latitude 19 deg. 34 min. North, and Longitude 91 deg. 15 min. West.
The maneuvers of the vessels involved in this collision were governed by the International Rules for Navigation at Sea, 33 U.S.C. § 144 et seq.
From the evidence before me, I find that the tug PEMEX XV at all times was displaying the proper lights required by the International Rules, as was the case with PEMEX BARGE 494.
The Captain of the JO-FRANCES, Kellis Brinn, was in exclusive control and at the wheel of the JO-FRANCES with an automatic pilot engaged when the collision occurred.
The Captain of the JO-FRANCES has testified that he did not know that the three white lights displayed upon the mast of the tug PEMEX XV, as required by Rule 3 of the International Rules, indicated a tug with tow of over 600 feet. He claims never to have seen the lights on the barge, but from the evidence before the Court, I find that the lights required to be on the barge were there.
It is possible for a shrimp trawler, such as the JO-FRANCES, to approach a tug and its tow from approximately a ninety degree angle and not see the lights on the barge, but the three white lights on the mast of the tug should have indicated to Captain Brinn of the JO-FRANCES that it had a barge in tow of over 600 feet.
Captain Brinn, however, did not know the meaning of the lights on the tug and was unaware of the tow. Because of this, I find that he was incompetent for night navigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rex v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A.
...261 App.Div. 1, 7, 24 N.Y.S.2d 201, 206 (1940); The Uxmal, 40 F.Supp. 258, 261 (D.Mass.1941); S. T. Tringali Co., Inc. v. The Tug Pemex XV, 274 F.Supp. 227, 230 (S.D.Tex.1967). Cf. Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30, 35 n. 1, 36-37, 65 S.Ct. 530, 532, 533 n. 1, 89 L.Ed. 729 (1945) (state owners......
-
Matter of Sedco, Inc.
...Pemex, as a national oil company, engages in a substantial amount of commercial activity. See e.g., S. T. Tringali Co. v. The Tug Pemex XV, 274 F.Supp. 227 (S.D.Tex.1967). However, this Court must focus on the specific acts made the basis of the present lawsuit in applying the FSIA. It is w......