The Admiral Watson, 4511.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1920
• Docket Number: 4511.
• Citation: 266 F. 122
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: THE ADMIRAL WATSON.

266 F. 122

THE ADMIRAL WATSON.

No. 4511.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

May 21, 1920

Winter S. Martin, of Seattle, Wash., for libelants, cited the following cases:

The Delaware, 161 U.S. 459, 16 Sup.Ct. 516, 40 L.Ed. 771; Britannia v. Cleugh, 153 U.S. 130, 14 Sup.Ct. 795 38 L.Ed. 660; The Isaac Newton, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 581, 15 L.Ed. 492; The Thielbek, 241 F. 209, 154 C.C.A. 129; The Putney Bridge (D.C.) 219 F. 1014; The Comport, 260 F. 151 . . C.C.A. . . .; The Haida, 191 F. (D.C.) 623; Id., 196 F 1005, 115 C.C.A. 376; The De Veaux Powell, 165 F. 634, 92 C.C.A. 54; Lie v. San Fran. & P.S.S. Co., 243 U.S 291, 37 Sup.Ct. 270, 61 L.Ed. 726; The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125, 22 L.Ed. 148; The Suffolk, 258 F. 219, 169 C.C.A. 287; Carroll v. City of New York, 249 F. 453, 161 C.C.A. 411; The Hokendaqua, 251 F. 562, 163 C.C.A. 556; The Nereus (D.C.) 23 F. 448; The Admiral (D.C.) 39 F. 574; Atlas Transp. Co. v. Lee Line Strs., 235 F. 492, 149 C.C.A. 38; Spencer on Collisions, Sec. 71, and cases cited on page 49; Stadacona, 242 F. 624, 155 C.C.A. 314; The Victoria, 168 U.S. 410-422, 18 Sup.Ct. 149, 42 L.Ed. 519; The Chicago, 125 F. 712, 60 C.C.A. 480; The Lansdowne (D.C.) 105 F. 436; The Saratoga (D.C.) 180 F. 620; Commonwealth & Dominion Line v. Seaboard Transp. Co. (D.C.) 258 F. 707; Marsden on Collisions (7th Ed.) p. 456; Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548, 16 L.Ed. 211; The Powhatan (D.C.) 248 F. 786; Marmet Coal, etc., Co. v. Feiger-Austin Dredging Co., 259 F. 435, 170 C.C.A. 411; The Madison, 250 F. 850, 163 C.C.A. 164; Jones v. Boice, 1 Stark. 493.

Grosscup & Morrow, of Tacoma, Wash., and Jones, Ridell & Brackett, of Seattle, Wash., for claimant, cited the following cases:

The Albatross (D.C.) 184 F. 363; The Arthur M. Palmer (D.C.) 115 F. 417; The Edwin J. Berwind, 144 F. 664, 75 C.C.A. 466; The Robert Dollar, 160 F. 876, 88 C.C.A. 58; The Trader (D.C.) 129 F. 462; The Joseph M. Clark (D.C.) 119 F. 462; The Straits of Dover, 120 F. 900, 58 C.C.A. 86; The Taurus (D.C.) 156 F. 838; Beatty v. Hanna, 122 U.S. 97, 7 Sup.Ct. 1158, 30 L.Ed. 1095; The New York, 175 U.S. 187, 20 Sup.Ct. 67, 44 L.Ed. 126.

NETERER District Judge.

On the evening of October 20, 1918, the steamship Admiral Watson and the fishing boat Helgeland collided in Alaskan waters near Ketchikan. Each vessel disclaims fault. It is stipulated that responsibility for the collision shall be determined, and that the amount of the damage, if any, shall be later ascertained.

The issue now is: Was either of the vessels solely at fault, or were the vessels mutually at fault? At the time named, the Watson approached Ketchikan by the passage south of Pennock Island. In making the turn to starboard, bound for the Oil Dock I, she was proceeding at full speed under port helm. The Helgeland, leaving the Northland Dock, was making a course towards East Clump light, and observed the Watson clearing the westerly end of Pennock Island, A on the appended diagram.

(Image Omitted)

A-B-B-D. Course of Watson.

C. Helgeland when one blast was given.

D. Watson when blast by Helgeland was given.

E. Point of collision.

F. Helgeland beached after collision.

G. Government dock.

I. Oil dock.

The Watson was continuing her course towards Ketchikan, A, B, B, D. The Helgeland blew one blast of her whistle at C, and changed her course to the right of the red buoy. The Watson, at this time, was at D, taking a course towards the Government Dock, G. The Watson did not answer the blast of the Helgeland. Both vessels continued on their course and speed until a collision was imminent, when the Watson blew two whistles, which the Helgeland answered by two whistles, the Watson slightly starboarding her helm, and the Helgeland porting her helm, and the Watson ran into the Helgeland. When the Helgeland blew one blast, the vessels were from one-half to two-thirds of a mile apart. If two-thirds of a mile, it would, at the speed each was going, take 2 minutes and 25 seconds to bring them together. If one-half mile, 1 minute and 49 seconds. Both vessels were near the shore, to the starboard side of the Helgeland and the port side of the Watson. The pilot of the Watson estimated the distance '300 or 400 feet, or less,' and in answer to the question, 'Did the Watson change her course after blowing her two whistles? ' replied:

'Changed her course a little to port. I could not afford to do it too much, for fear of running the ship ashore.'

He also said that the Helgeland had the right of way, and that she came under the starboard right-hand rule, and that there was plenty of sea room for him to pass the Helgeland on his port side. While the captain says that a lookout was maintained, no report was made by the lookout, nor is there testimony that the lookout was on duty. Other witnesses on the Watson saw the Helgeland approaching in ample time for the Watson to have gotten out of the way. The pilot of the Helgeland says he had the right of way, and expected the Watson to change, but that she came 'straight on, on our port side, two or three points on our port bow,' and said he was sure that the Watson would port her helm. When asked why, he said, 'We were so close to shore,' and, on further inquiry as to why he kept his course and speed, said:

'I never thought she would cross a man's bow so close to shore, when she was so close to shore herself.'

And, when asked why he did not give a danger signal, said:

'I had no business to do it, because we had the right of way by law. We had the right of way by law, and that is why I thought she would swing any moment, because she did not have to swing very far to clear her stern-- swing very little to starboard to clear her stern.'

When asked if he did not know the rule requiring the danger signal when in doubt as to the other's intention, he said, 'He didn't comply with the law, either.'

The Watson contends that it did not hear the blast of the Helgeland, and that it did not discover the Helgeland until it was within 400 or 500 feet, and immediately sounded two blasts and got permission from the Helgeland to cross her bow; but the Helgeland, contrary to its consent, ported its helm, and the collision followed.

I am satisfied from the evidence that the Watson did not sound a blast until the collision was imminent, and that the pilot of the Helgeland, through the imminence of the peril and confusion, gave the two blasts, and without any intention of giving up the right of way, and, whatever the conduct of the Helgeland when the blasts were given, the collision would have followed notwithstanding.

Direct and positive proof that a whistle was sounded may not be swept aside and disregarded, because others failed to hear it. Persons charged with duty cannot excuse consequences of inattention by saying they did not hear what they should have heard, or failed to see what they should have seen, if their attention had been centered on duty. There is no question but all of the lights of the Helgeland were lighted; the dynamo performing its normal functions, the electric masthead and sidelights were normal. The masthead light was, perhaps, confused by the officers of the Watson with the lights on shore from the town of Ketchikan, and blended with the lights on the Ketchikan shore; but the night was clear, and the lights were observed by others in ample time to afford a safe passing, and the failure to observe these lights by the officers in charge of the Watson must be attributable to the insufficiency of the ship's lookout. The Stimson (D.C.) 257 F. 762; Id., 262 F. 245, . . . C.C.A. . . . . The failure to see the lights earlier was a clear omission of duty.

The Helgeland is a gasoline power vessel, 87 feet in length, 18-foot beam, two masts, schooner rigged, and equipped with 125 horse power, 56 net tons, documented and licensed at Seattle. The Admiral Watson is 250 feet long, 38-foot beam, 2,009 gross tonnage, 1,237 net tonnage.

The waters in which these vessels collided is a narrow channel. The Klatawa (filed May 8, 1920) 266 F. 120. The international, inland, and pilot rules provide:

'That in narrow channels, every steam

...