The Doris Eckhoff
| Decision Date | 02 July 1887 |
| Citation | 32 F. 555 |
| Parties | THE DORIS ECKHOFF. [1] v. THE DORIS ECKHOFF, and Owners of the Steam-Tugs John G. Stevens and R. S. Carter. LOUD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
The libel in this case was filed to recover damages arising from a collision in the East river, a few hundred feet below Corlear's Hook, at about 10 A.M. on the morning of March 8, 1886, between the libelants' schooner C.R. Flint, and the bark Doris Eckhoff. The Flint was going up river with a strong flood-tide, in tow of the steam-tug J.C. Stevens, upon a hawser of 40 fathoms. The bark was coming down the river upon a hawser of about the same length, in tow of the tug R.S. Carter. The Stevens and the schooner were proceeding up river about one-third the distance across from the New York shore. The Carter, with the bark, was coming down river from above the Hook, still nearer to the shore, and in the eddy tide. Off Corlear's Hook, they were from 100 to 200 feet only off the New York shore. From the Jackson-street pier, a few hundred feet below, the flood-tide takes a strong set across towards the Brooklyn shore, running probably three knots. The tugs were approaching each other at about the rate of 10 knots, and, when only about 400 yards apart, each had given one blast of the whistle, indicating that they would pass port to port. Doubtless they would have done so safely except for the effect of the cross-tide upon the Eckhoff. As the Carter and the Eckhoff, on rounding the Hook, struck the strong cross-current of the flood-tide, they were both deflected to port, and the bark, unable to keep her former direction, ran into the schooner, as consequence of which the latter sank not long after. The libel was originally filed against the bark and the two tug-boats, alleging fault in all. Only the bark, however, was arrested under the process of this court; the two tug-boats having been previously seized under process in the Eastern district, and thereunder sold. Afterwards, upon petition by the claimants, under the fifty-ninth rule of the supreme court in admiralty, the owners of the two steam-tugs were made parties defendant in personam, and they subsequently appeared and answered.
Without referring to the numerous details that appeared upon the elaborate trial of the cause, the following faults contributing to the collision seem to me to be clearly established:
1. The Stevens and the schooner were not going 'in mid-river, or as near thereto as may be,' as required by the state statute; but at the time of the collision were not more than 400 or 500 feet from the New York shore. Their contention that they could not go further out on account of ice is not in my opinion, sustained by the proof. After the collision there was not ice sufficient to prevent the schooner's reaching the Wallabout, towards which she was headed as soon as collision was feared. Although the distance from the shore might be deemed sufficient to allow the Carter and the bark to have passed in safety in an even tide, the strong cross-tide made this distance insufficient and unsafe; and the disobedience of the statutory requirement was therefore a fault contributing to the collision. The Maryland, 19 F. 551.
2. The tug Carter was guilty of the same fault for hugging the New York shore. This fault alone would not have caused collision, but, being there, instead of keeping there, she sheered towards the Brooklyn shore sooner than, under the circumstances, she was justified in doing; and she also slackened her speed unnecessarily, as she went into the cross-tide, whereby the hawser was much slackened, and the bark thereby deprived during a few critical moments of the tug's aid in keeping to starboard out of the way of the schooner. The weight of the evidence satisfies me that the tug headed towards the Brooklyn shore, just astern of the schooner, by her own volition, and not through the effect of the cross-tide, or in spite of what the tug might have done to keep to starboard.
Both tugs were further in fault for not exchanging signals earlier, i.e., half a mile apart, as required by the inspector's rules; and for attempting to pass so near each other, port to port, in that part of the river, where the strong cross-tide was certain to create considerable deflection in the course of the bark in tow on such a hawser. The nearness of each to the shore probably prevented each from seeing the other as soon as they ought to have been seen, and this prevented timely signals. The Maryland, supra.
3. I am not satisfied that the Eckhoff used the prudence and skill that were incumbent on her, and were easily within her power in passing from the eddy into the strong cross-tide. It was imprudent, and I must regard it as a fault, for the bark to starboard the helm, as she did, at about the time when she was just running into the true tide, when she could not possibly pass ahead of the Stevens and her tow, and when this starboarding, and the effect of the tide, were both calculated to throw her directly upon the course of the schooner. The only excuse offered is that she headed directly after the tug. This is doubtless right in a true tide, and where such a course would have no tendency to precipitate a collision. It was manifestly wrong in this case, because, in order to keep directly after the tug, it was necessary that the schooner should port her helm, rather than starboard it, at the moment, or a little before the moment, when she began to enter the strong tide that swept across her starboard bow. Instead of that, her helm was at first put to starboard, which increased the effect of the strong tide, and made her subsequent port helm wholly ineffectual to avoid the Flint. In this faulty use of her helm the case is analogous of that of The Virginia Ehrman, 97 U.S. 309, 315. As in that case, also, there seem to me strong indications that the bark was not keeping a proper lookout, nor taking those precautions which it was well known were necessary in passing into the cross-current at this place. Though the master was on board, he did not observe the whistles exchanged between the tugs; and if the mate was on the lookout, as alleged, no hail was at any time received from him. The wheel was first starboarded by the wheelsman without any direction or counter-order by the master, who was near him and ought to have observed that it was dangerous to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowling v. Isthmian SS Corporation
...necessary, in cases not literally within the rule. The City of Lincoln, D.C., 25 F. 835; The John Cottrell, D.C., 34 F. 907; The Doris Eckhoff, D.C., 32 F. 555; Joice v. Canal-Boats, D.C., 25 F. 553." The Alert, D.C., 40 F. 836, 839. In this case, the court ordered codefendants brought into......
-
Shaver Transp. Co. v. Columbia Contract Co.
... ... 1876); The ... John Cooker and The James W. Eaton, 10 Ben. 488, 13 Fed.Cas ... 665, Fed. Cas. No. 7,337 (Dist. Ct. E.D.N.Y. 1879); The Doris ... Eckhoff, 32 F. 555 (Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y. 1887); The Umbria, 166 ... U.S. 404, 17 Sup.Ct. 610, 41 L.Ed. 1053 (U.S. S.Ct. 1897) ... This ... ...
-
The Chickasaw
...12 Wall. 31, 44; The Clara Clarita, 5 Ben. 375-381, 23 Wall. 1-15; The W. H. Clark, 5 Biss. 295, 306; The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665; The Doris Eckhoff, 32 F. 555, A. R. Wetmore, 5 Ben. 147; The City of Alexandria, 31 F. 427. Most of these cases are of tugs and tows; but the principle is the sa......
-
The Express
...whether upon the evidence the Niagara was such a participant in the navigation as to be chargeable with half the damages. See The Doris Eckhoff, 32 F. 555; The Carrier Dove, Brown. L. 113; The Niobe, 13 Prob.Div. 55. --------- Notes: [1] Reported by Edward G. Benedict, of the New York bar. ......