The Inca
| Decision Date | 03 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | 1,596. |
| Citation | 148 F. 363 |
| Parties | THE INCA. v. SWAN et al. SOUTH ATLANTIC TOWING CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William Garrard and P. W. Meldrim, for appellants.
Walter G. Charlton, for appellees.
Argued before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MEEK, District judge.
MEEK District Judge. This cause comes up on appeal from the decree of the District Court of the United States for the Southern decree of the District Of Georgia, sitting in admiralty. The libel in rem was filed by John Swan and others, owners of the bark Justine H. Ingersoll, against the steam tug Inca, then lying in the port of Brunswick, Ga. The South Atlantic Towing Company, owner of the tug, intervened as claimant. The trial below resulted in a decree in favor of the libelant against the defendant, the claimant, and a surety company (the tug having been released to claimant on bond), for the sum of $6,700.89. From this decree claimant appeals.
The Justine H. Ingersoll took on a cargo of 373,000 feet of lumber at the Hilton & Dodge Mills, a point up the Satilla river, in the state of Georgia, about 18 miles from Saint Andrew's Sound. Her destination was New York, via the river and the sound, and she was ready to begin her voyage on February 8, 1903. The steam tug Inca was engaged to carry her to sea, and for this purpose took her in tow at the mills about 1 o'clock p.m. of that day. The bark was 142 feet long, and loaded, drew 17 feet 3 inches aft, and 16 feet 6 inches forward. The Satilla river is a navigable river at the point where the bark was lying, having an ebb and flow tide with a rise of about 6 feet, and with sufficient draft to float the bark in safety. The tide began to flow in about noon, and the voyage was commenced on a young flood. The hawser, with 350 feet of length, was made fast on the bark to her port bow and at the stern of the tug to her starboard bitts. While going around a curve or bend in the river, about a half mile from the place of starting, the bark, while being drawn by the tug, was run upon a mound of rock or ballast that had been sunk in the river years before. The river at this point was from 375 to 390 feet wide. The channel was 200 feet wide, with a depth of water of from 28 to 30 feet, and going down, was to the right or starboard of the stream. The mound of rock was on the port side of the channel, and in the curve or bight of the river. The bark struck and struck between the foot of her mizzenmast and stern. The tug made three efforts to pull her for this purpose, her rudder came up, and in coming off the obstruction she lost her shoe, and in coming off the obstruction she lost her shoe, and was so injured otherwise that she filled, and sunk in 5 or 10 minutes. A survey was held upon the bark after sinking, and as repairs would have cost $10,000, it was recommended by the board of surveyors that she be sold as she lay, which was done. She was almost a total loss, bringing but $725 at the sale. This amount was bid largely for her apparel and furniture.
The faults charged against the master of the Inca were, substantially, that he failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and caution and maritime skill-- first, in towing the bark on the stage of tide then existing; second, in handling the bark immediately before and at the time and place of grounding; and, third, in his efforts to get the bark off the obstruction. The contentions of the claimant were that the bark was unseaworthy, and that she was not steered in the wake of the tug, but permitted to sheer off to port, thus bringing herself upon the mound of rock.
When the master of the bark engaged the services of the steam tug to carry her to sea, and the tug assumed the task, the latter was in control, and became the dominating mind in the undertaking. White v. Steam Tug Lavergne (D.C.) 2 Fed. 788; The Annie Williams (D.C.) 20 F. 866; The Express, 3 Clif. 462, Fed. Cas. No. 4209. In the relations existing between the steam tug and the tow, duties were imposed upon each. The conditions under which the venture was to be undertaken were confided to the tug. Her holding out for this service implied a knowledge of the conditions of the stream, channel, and tide that were to be met, so far as reasonable maritime experience and efficiency as pilot in this river could inform her. It was for her to determine the hour of starting; to fix the relative positions of the tug and tow; to control the length of hawser; to regulate the speed of the vessels according to the exigencies of the voyage; to give necessary instruction to the tow for its movements and safety. The correlative duties of following the guidance of the tug, to keep as near as possible in her wake, and to conform to her directions, were imposed upon the tow. The exercise of reasonable car and skill within this sphere were incumbent upon her. The Margaret, 94 U.S. 497, 24 L.Ed. 146; The Fannie Tuthill (D. C.) 12 F. 446.
Entering upon a consideration of the faults charged against the tug, it appears that the warning testified to have been given the master of the tug as to the dangerous stage of the tide upon which he was undertaking the tow had peculiar reference to shoals in the river that had to be passed several miles below the point of grounding. Probably, had the tide been at full flood at the time of starting, the stone mound would not have been an obstruction, and the bark could have passed over it in safety. But the channel of the river 200 feet in width was navigable, irrespective of the stage of the tide.
As to the manner of handling the bark immediately before and at the time and place of grounding, it is shown that the Satilla is a muddy, fresh-water stream; that the master of the tugboat had an experience of 15 years as a pilot, and was accustomed to ply his vocation on this river; that he did not know of the stone mound sunk in the river at this point, although it had been made many years before by vessels dumping their ballasts of stone, and was known by other pilots on the river. In one instance the knowledge of its presence had been handed down from father to son. These circumstances, taken in connection with the ebb and flow of the tide and the consequent changing of depths and currents, with the draft of vessels plying there, and with the configuration of the banks of the river, made it incumbent upon him to be advised of its presence. If the accident resulted through his ignorance of this known obstruction to navigation, the owners of the tug would be liable. The Margaret, supra; The Florence (D. C.) 88 F. 302; The Robert H. Burnett (D. C.) 30 F. 214.
As to what transpired immediately before and at the time of the grounding, we quote from the opinion of the learned trial judge, who manifestly gave attentive consideration to the case:
'It appeared from the evidence at the time of the misadventure, she (the tug) was going ahead with all her power. Taking the diagram as true, in connection with the testimony of Floyd, the master of the tug, we discover these facts: The river is 375 or 390 feet wide at the point where the Ingersoll grounded. This was on the port side of the vessel, and on the left-hand side of the river. The channel was 200 feet wide. According to the testimony of Floyd, the obstruction which caused the loss of the vessel was 60 feet to the left-hand edge of the channel. The bark was 142 feet long and 40 feet wide, and it is safe to conclude that if all Floyd said was true, around the natural sweep of the tow at the end of a hawser 300 feet long would have carried the tow to the point where she struck. There were peculiar reasons, therefore, why the tow should have received the most careful instructions to avoid this danger. There was at least 24 feet of water everywhere in that neighborhood, except on these ballast mounds. Besides, the master of the tug must have known that while she was going around the bend, the strong flood tide striking the tow on the starboard bow would have a tendency to bear her off to port and on these obstructions. That she was wobbling,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bisso v. Waterways Transportation Company, 15464.
... ... 1689 ... The explanation could not be found in any providential act since what nature presented was neither sudden nor catastrophic, and, indeed, the expected current was about all that offered much challenge to the reputed professional skill of these towers. The Inca, 5 Cir., 148 F. 363, 365; The Algic, supra; Shasta Steamship Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., D.C.W.D.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 572, 574, 1943 A.M.C. 1205; The Severance, 4 Cir., 152 F.2d 916, 1946 A.M.C. 128; McWilliams Bros. v. Director General of Railroads, 2 Cir., 271 F. 931, 932. If the explanation were ... ...
-
Houma Well Service, Inc. v. Tug Capt. O'Brien, Civ. A. No. 66-883.
... ... & T. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 2 Cir. 1942, 130 F.2d 199; The E. T. Halloran, 2 Cir. 1940, 111 F.2d 571, 572; Tomkins Cove Stone Co. v. Bleakley Transp. Co., 3 Cir. 1930, 40 F.2d 249, 251; Banks v. Chas. Kurz Co., E.D. Pa.1947, 69 F.Supp. 1017, 1018 ... 7 See, e. g., The Inca ... ...
-
THE ALGIC
... ... 477; Gilchrist Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., supra; The Allegheny (C.C.A.) 252 F. 6; The Harry M. Wall (D.C.) 187 F. 278; The W. G. Mason (C.C.A.) 142 F. 913; Coastwise Transp. Corp. v. United States (D.C.) 43 F.(2d) 401; The W. H. Baldwin (C. C.A.) 271 F. 411; The Inca (C.C.A.5) 148 F. 363; Baltimore & Boston Barge 13 F. Supp. 838 Co. v. Knickerbocker Steam Towage Co. (D.C.) 159 F. 755; The Marie Palmer (D.C.) 191 F. 79; Note, 54 A.L.R. 104; 63 C.J. 26(62), 42(96), 45(102) ... There is evidence that inshore along the face of the docks in the ... ...
-
Walker v. Tug Diane
... ... The City of Alexandria, 2 Cir., 31 F. 427 (1887); Cushing v. The John Fraser, 350 F. Supp. 1390 supra; Sturgis v. Boyer, supra; The Clarita, 23 Wall. (90 U.S.) 1, 23 L.Ed. 146, 150 (1874); The Inca, 5 Cir., 148 F. 363 (1906); The Express, 2 Cir., 52 F. 890 (1892); The Prinze August Wilhelm, 2 Cir., 166 F. 995 (1908); The Margaret Thomas, 4 Cir., 183 F. 336 (1910); The C. W. Mills, 5 Cir., 241 F. 204, 378 (1917); The Teaser, 3 Cir., 246 F. 219 (1917); The Cromwell, 4 Cir., 259 F. 166 (1919), ... ...