The Golden Grove
| Citation | 13 F. 674 |
| Parties | THE GOLDEN GROVE. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1882 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
This is a cause of collision civil and maritime, in which the owners of the brig Kremlin, (the vessel sunk by the collision,) and of the freight pending on the cargo on board the said brig at the time of the collision, on behalf of themselves, and of the officers and crew of the said vessel at the time of her said loss, owners of charts, books, instruments, and personal effects on board said vessel at the time of her loss, the owners of the cargo of sugar on board of the said vessel at the time of her loss, and the owners of the chronometer on board of the said vessel, are complainants, and John S Smailes, the master of the British steamer Golden Grove intervening for the interest of the owners thereof, is the respondent.
There are facts in this case admitted on both sides, or so clearly proven as to leave no reasonable doubt as to their verity, a statement of which will simplify and shorten its examination:
On the morning of Tuesday, July the 9th last past, at about 1 o'clock, the brig Kremlin, then on a voyage from Cienfuegos to Boston with a cargo of sugar on board, was run into and sunk by the said Golden Grove; the place of collision being about 30 miles S. by 1/2 a degree E. from the island of Nantucket. The Kremlin was sailing N.E. by E. She was a hermaphrodite bring of about . . . tons burden, and was moving at the rate of six and a half knots an hour. Her length was about 117 feet; depth, 15 feet; and beam, 30 feet. She was sailing with a free breeze aft, about one and half points on the starboard quarter. The night was not dark neither was it perfectly clear. The horizon was smoky and hazy, though not so cloudy as to prevent stars well above the horizon from being seen. There was no gale-- only the ordinary breeze of a summer night on the water.
The British steamship Golden Grove was on her voyage from Cardiff to the Delaware breakwater for orders. Her course was W. 1/2 S., and she was sailing at the rate of eight and a half knots per hour. At the time of the discovery of the steamer by the Kremlin the former bore about two and a half points on the starboard bow of the latter. The Kremlin did not change her course in the least degree until she was struck by the steamer. The Golden Grove had but one watch on deck for some time before the collision took place. On the first discovery and report by the watch of the steamer of the bright light or flash-light on the Kremlin, the helm of the Golden Grove 'was at once put hart a-port,' and from that time to the time of the collision she kept her helm hard a-port, and in that time changed about five points of the compass. No attempt was made until some time after this maneuver to arrest the speed of the steamer; not, indeed, until within some 200 feet of each other, when the attempt which was then made proved utterly inefficacious. Immediately on the discovery of the approach of the steamer the captain of the Kremlin had a torch lighted on the starboard side of his vessel, on which side the steamer was approaching. It was relit twice after it had been first extinguished. It was such an one as was commonly used by sailing vessels on the approach of steamers in the night-time. The Kremlin had no other bright light on board. The red light on the steamer was seen from the Kremlin distinctly before the torch-light was lit.
While it is true that it is the duty of the steam-vessel to avoid the sailing vessel, it is no less the duty of the latter to afford the steamer all the means and signals the law, custom, and common prudence prescribe to enable her to make this avoidance; and if in any respect she fails therein and thereby produces the disaster, she must either bear the whole loss, or her share thereof, as her fault was the sole or partial cause of the collision.
The libelants say that the Kremlin in all respects obeyed the requirements of the law and usage as regards the conduct and management of sailing vessels, particularly those provisions concerning the exhibition of signals required by law, and that the collision was the result of carelessness, recklessness, ignorance, and the violation of the simplest rules for the preservation of safety on the part of the watch and officers of the steamer. The claimant on the other hand contends that the collision was not the result of any fault on the part of the officers, or of any of the crew of the steamer, but was produced by a series of improper acts and maneuvers on the part of the Kremlin-- First, (as stated in the printed argument of the claimant, page 22,) by placing her lights so that they did not cover ten points; second, by flashing three consecutive lights in such a way as to obscure those lights and make them useless; and, third, by failing to do, when the catastrophe was imminent, the only thing which could have been done to prevent the accident, or at least to attenuate its consequences.
It must be evident that this is a case in which the collision was not the result of any accident in the legal sense of the word. Signals were shown and seen. There was ample time in case of doubt, as will be fully shown hereafter, to have arrested the speed of the steamer before an accident was possible. There was nothing in the character of the night as to darkness or storm or dangerous coast to interfere with the full exhibition of signals, their prompt discovery if properly exhibited, and their intelligent interpretation by every man fit to be on the lookout or to navigate a steam-ship. This collision was therefore not the result of accident, but of fault somewhere, either wholly by the steamer or wholly by the brig, or jointly by both. In the investigation of this question of fault I shall take up the subject in the order in which it has been considered by the claimant's counsel:
1. Had the brig proper side lights, and were they properly placed; that is, placed so in the vessel as that no object intervened so as to obstruct the green light on the brig from the lookout on the steamer? It is not contended that the lights, green and red, as required by the rules for preventing collisions on the water, (enacted by the congress of the United States and to be found re-enacted in the late revised edition of the Laws of the United States, Sec. 4233, p. 815, and in the articles and regulations now in force under orders in council in Great Britain for preventing collisions at sea, to be found in Holt's Rule of the Road, articles 3 and 5, and pages 8 and 9,) were not of the precise kind required by law, as to form, size, quality, and construction of the lantern and fenders. The character of the lights and lanterns and fenders was so abundantly proven by witnesses who spoke to that point, and by the production of a lantern as Exhibit D, which was proven to be of the proper kind, and exactly like those on board of the Kremlin, that it must be assumed as an undeniable fact that the Kremlin had on board the night of the collision, such lights, red and green, and their proper screens or fenders. In this connection it may be stated that it was proven that the lights were larger than those usually used on brigs of the size of the Kremlin, and were of the same size as those used by the steamer.
2. The next question for investigation is, were these lanterns properly trimmed, or prepared and made ready to burn brightly, as they were intended to do and as they were capable of doing? And did they, in point of fact, burn in such a manner during that evening until the collision? On this point we have the testimony of Frank Morgan, who was on board of the Kremlin as cook and steward at the time of the collision. In answer to the question, 'State whether or not on the day before the collision you did fill and trim the lamps, and if you state that you did, state fully and in detail all you did to them; ' he replied: ' He further said that the lights he lit 'were exactly like this one;' putting his hand on the one produced as Exhibit D in this cause. Now this testimony is natural, explicit, and is denied by nobody. Were these lights lit on the night of the collision, and were they burning as they were intended to burn up to the time of the collision? The first mate of the Kremlin, Carlston, says, (page 29, testimony,) in answer to the question, 'Do you know who put up the lights that night? ' ' So far there can be no doubt that the side lights of the brig were filled, trimmed and lit on the evening of the collision.
It has been asserted by the claimant and respondent that the green light of the Kremlin was burning dimly; that it was not emitting that brightness or intensity of light of which it was capable, and for which it was constructed; and as that was the side light on the brig, over the port bow of the steamer, from this alleged defect of light, which could have been and ought to have been corrected by the brig, the steamer was prevented from discovering the motions of the brig. The evidence as to the dimness of this green light (outside the question of obstruction) is intended to reach this result, or it amounts to nothing. The matter of having side lights burning with the usual and proper intensity is of importance in the cause; perhaps as of much importance as their proper disposition or placing on the brig. The testimony on behalf of the claimant on this point is as follows: Charles Atwood, ordinary seaman...
To continue reading
Request your trial