The Hilton
| Citation | 213 F. 997 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1914 |
| Parties | THE HILTON. THE ATLANTA. |
Hughes Little & Seawell, of Norfolk, Va., and B. W. Wells, of New York City, for libelant.
Arthur D. Foster, of Baltimore, Md., and W. Leigh Williams, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
These cases involve a collision tat occurred on the morning of the 26th of December, 1912, in the waters of the Patapsco river at the junction of the Brewerton and CutOff channels, between the steamship Hilton of the libelant company's line, and the steamer Atlanta of the Chesapeake steamship line. The Hilton is a large steamer of 3,102 tons gross, 2,433 net 315 & Miners' Transportation Company, hereinafter referred to, proceeding up the river en route to Baltimore; the Hilton some half hour ahead of the others, on a voyage from Carteret, N.J., light, and the Atlanta from West Point, Va., laden with freight and passengers. A short time before the collision, the three vessels encountered fog in the Cut-Off channel, and the Hilton, on account of the density of the fog, came to anchor on the port side of the channel, opposite buoy 17, and the other two vessels continued their courses in said channel, the Howard on the starboard of the Atlanta, and the latter ship between her and the port side of the channel. While thus navigating, the Atlanta came into collision with the Hilton, striking her on her starboard bow, causing the damages sued for. The collision occurred about 7 o'clock in the morning; the Howard at the time had dropped anchor on the opposite side of the channel from that of the Hilton.
The Hilton charges fault against the Atlanta in that she failed to keep a good lookout; that she was proceeding at an immoderate rate of speed under the circumstances; that she should have stopped and backed; that she did not keep to the starboard side of the channel; and that she failed to avoid colliding with the Hilton.
The Atlanta, on the other hand, insists that the Hilton's anchorage was a clear violation of the statute; that she should have anchored in other anchorage grounds in the vicinity; and that it was merely her own convenience that caused her to anchor where she did, creating an obstruction to navigation, and a menace to life and property of others lawfully using the channel; that she was without a sufficient anchor watch, and failed to adopt the reasonable precaution of dropping her stern as well as her bow anchor, to hold her parallel with the channel.
Upon the issues thus made, considerable testimony was taken by the parties respectively, and in the view taken by the court the case turns upon the correct determination of two questions: (1) Whether the Hilton at the time of the collision was anchored in a proper place, and safely and properly moored; and (2) whether the Atlanta was proceeding at an undue speed in the then prevailing weather. These will be considered in the order mentioned.
In determining the propriety of the place of anchorage of the Hilton, the fact of the existence of fog, which became denser as she proceeded up the channel, and that she, the forward ship, had been forced to anchor perhaps half an hour before the collision, must be taken into account, as must also the width and depth of the waters in and out of the channel at the scene of the collision. The Brewerton channel, as well as the Cut-Off channel, was about 600 feet wide, and 35 feet deep, but at the place of the accident, namely, at the intersection of the two channels, between buoys 15 and 19, the deep water on the port side, opposite buoy 17 where the collision occurred, outside of the channel was for some distance 17, 18, and 19 feet deep at low water. The collision happened during flood tide. The Hilton was light, drawing 7 feet forward, and about 15 feet aft, and might have anchored outside of the channel with safety and prudence, as well as either to the starboard side, where she should properly have been navigating, or preferably, if in the channel at all, in the middle thereof, there being room to have anchored there, leaving ample space for the free passage of shipping to lawfully navigate on either side. Sight is not lost of the fact that in a fog difficulty may frequently be encountered in knowing where to anchor; but that does not apply here, since the Hilton was in full view of and saw the buoys on her port side, at and before the time she anchored, and knew where she was; and she was charged with knowledge as well of the width of the channel at the angle of intersection between the two, as of the depth of water outside the buoys, observable to her when she anchored.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Sagamore
... ... 541; ... The West Brooklyn (D.C.) 106 F. 751, 752; The George W. Roby, ... 111 F. 601, 610, 49 C.C.A. 481; The Belgian King, 125 F. 869, ... 60 C.C.A. 451; The Georgia (D.C.) 208 F. 635; The Kentucky ... (D.C.) 148 F. 500, 502; The Bayonne, 213 F. 216, 217, 129 ... C.C.A. 560; The Hilton (D.C.) 213 F. 997, 1001; The Rosaleen, ... 214 F. 252, 254, 130 C.C.A. 622; The Port Johnson Towing Co., ... 232 F. 141, 146 C.C.A. 333; The Manchioneal, 243 F. 801, ... C.C.A ... ; The Robert M. Thompson, 244 F. 662, 671, ... C.C.A ... ; The Etruria, 147 F. 216, 77 C.C.A. 442; ... ...
-
Petition of Socony Vacuum Transp. Co.
... ... 33 U.S.C.A. § 409; see The Caldy, 4 Cir., 153 F. 837, 840. It does not appear whether The Choapa had a stern anchor which she might have used in conjunction with her bow anchor to prevent swinging across the channel (cf. The Hilton, D.C., 213 F. 997, 1000), but there is no excuse for her failure to use her engines, which were admittedly available, to maintain a position in the channel as nearly parallel as possible to the course of the outbound convoy. See The Caldy, supra. It is not an answer to say that The Voco had no ... ...
-
New York & Cuba Mail S.S. Co. v. United States
... ... collision in the instant case would be wholly unwarranted and ... immoderate. Indeed, many times this court has held that a ... very much less speed than 12 knots is an immoderate speed ... The Columbia, supra; The H. F. Dimock, 77 F. 226, 23 C.C.A ... 123; The Hilton (D.C.) 213 F. 997; The Rosaleen, 214 F. 252, ... 130 C.C.A. 622 ... The ... government contends, however, that the Conner was justified ... in proceeding at 12 knots because of her tremendous backing ... [300 F. 831] ... which would enable her to stop in a shorter distance than ... ...
-
Houchen v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.
... ... 221; The John H. Starin, 122 F. 236, 58 ... C. C. A. 600 ... If this ... action had been brought under the maritime law, upon a ... finding that the defendant was negligent the damages would ... have been divided between the two vessels. The Hilton (D. C.) ... 213 F. 997; The Passaic (D. C.) 76 F. 460; The Itasca (D. C.) ... 117 F. 885. This being so, and there being no evidence other ... than the happening of the accident of a wanton or willful ... disposition--design, as some of the books put it--to destroy ... ...