The Margaret J. Sanford

• Decision Date: 31 January 1913
• Docket Number: THE S. 11.
• Citation: 203 F. 331
• Parties: THE MARGARET J. SANFORD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

203 F. 331

THE MARGARET J. SANFORD.

THE S. 11.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia.

January 31, 1913

Hughes & Vandeventer, of Norfolk, Va., and Ralph J. M. Bullowa, of New York City, for libelant.

Hughes Little & Seawell, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.

WADDILL District Judge.

On the morning of 19th January, 1912, about 9 o'clock, the steamship Strathleven, 3,996 tons gross, 350 feet long, 52 feet 3 inches beam, and 28 feet draft, light, came up the Elizabeth river, Norfolk, Va., in charge of a Virginia pilot and cast anchor under the beacon near the entrance to the West Norfolk channel, on the western side of the river. The wind was blowing heavily from the northwest, some 30 miles an hour, and the tide slightly flood. On the opposite, or eastern side, of the river, and a little upstream, a dredge was at work, under contract with the government. The Sanford was proceeding down the river on the eastern side of the channel, towing two loaded mud scows to the dumping grounds below Ft. Wool. The Sanford was about 80 feet long, 11 feet draft, and the scows each about 100 feet long, 35 feet beam and draft of about 11 feet. The scows were made fast to each other by means of lines three or four feet in length, from the rear of the forward scow to the forward end of the rear scow, and were being towed on a hawser between the forward scow and the tug of some 25 fathoms. The deep water channel of the river was 800 feet wide, and the range stakes from the dredge on the eastern side of the channel extended well out in the deep water channel. The Strathleven's anchor dragged, and 45 fathoms of chain was paid out before she finally brought up on her anchor; and she drifted, or was driven across the channel, under the influence of the then prevailing wind, over to the eastern side thereof, her stern extending into the range stakes aforesaid. About the same time, while the tug and tow were thus navigating down the channel, on its eastern side, having passed the dredge, and shortly before reaching the Strathleven, it received two signals from the Maryland, a passenger steamer of some 300 feet long, coming up from behind the Strathleven, and which it had not previously observed, to pass the Sanford starboard to starboard; and the Maryland and Sanford so passed in close proximity to each other, about the Maryland's length above the Strathleven. The Maryland passed out into the range stakes, and to the extreme eastern side of the channel, the Sanford bearing as far to the eastward as possible, having regard to the presence of the Maryland, and passed the Strathleven safely, as did its forward scow, but the rear one slightly grazed the stern of the Strathleven on her port quarter, breaking, as is claimed, her propeller and shaft.

The Strathleven insists that she was in all respects free from fault and properly anchored, and that the collision occurred because of the failure of the Sanford to have a proper lookout; that she was handling a heavy and unwieldly tow on too long a hawser, which she could not properly control; and that she was grossly negligent in not so directing her navigation as to avoid collision with the steamship at anchor.

The tug insists that it was entirely free from fault, and that the collision was brought about solely: (1) By the ship's failure to keep a lookout; (2) by anchoring in an improper place, considering the condition of the weather and tide; (3) by not putting out an additional anchor to hold the steamship; (4) by putting out so much chain as to permit the vessel to tail into and across the channel, so as to materially obstruct the navigation thereof; (5) by not going ahead on her engines, to keep the vessel up to her anchorage.

Upon this statement of the circumstances of the collision, and the contentions of the respective parties, it will be readily seen that the real question to be determined is whether the accident occurred because of the improper manner and place of anchorage of the Strathleven, or from the failure of those in charge of the tug and tow to exercise proper care in proceeding down the channel, having regard to the Strathleven's position.

A large number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties respectively, many of whom saw the impact, which occurred in broad daylight, between 9 and 9:30 in the forenoon, most of them seafaring men, who gave intelligent accounts of just what did occur; and, while the conflict between them on some of the important questions involved is irreconcilable, as to the essential and more material facts, there is little or no difficulty in harmonizing their statements.

Ordinarily, the position of the libelant, that there is no excuse for a collision in these waters in broad daylight, with a vessel at anchor, may be conceded, and that those navigating the harbor are charged with the duty of looking out for and avoiding a collision, or the risk of collision, with a ship thus at rest; but whether the Strathleven on this occasion should be treated as a ship at rest, and the Sanford charged with the obligation of avoiding collision with her, within the meaning of the rules of navigation, is a very different proposition. On the Sanford's statement, and there is much evidence to support it, certainly that of her own master, the master of the Maryland, in a favored position to observe the vessel's movements, and that of the harbor master, who was near to the scene of the accident, there would be no doubt of responsibility for the collision, since the Strathleven's continuing to draft across the channel caused her to collide with the rear scow in the tow.

In the view taken by the court, it is not necessary to determine the conflict between the parties, as to whether the Strathleven drifted into the tow or not; since the facts sufficiently establish her negligence and that of the freedom from fault of the Sanford, under the circumstances of this case, whether the Strathleven had actually ceased to drag or not. The Strathleven, light, without authority from the harbor master, and apparently without the slightest regard to the rights of those lawfully navigating the river, with a strong westerly wind prevailing, cast her anchor on the western line of the channel, and was driven across the channel, taking up nearly the entire fairway, the ship's length, and that of her hawser, being 620 feet. The harbor master, who was near by, says that the tug and tow was not more than 500 or 600 feet upstream when the Strathleven cast anchor, and both the steamer's master and the pilot, who was in charge of her navigation, say that they did not observe the presence of the tug and tow until after the ship had brought up on her anchor; the master placing them at a ship's length away from his vessel, and the pilot about 200 yards away. The pilot also stated that this was within three minutes of the time of the collision, and that he had only stopped his engines four minutes before it occured and paid out his anchor chain up to within one minute of the time he stopped; and further that he neither looked up nor down the stream for other vessels, and had not observed the Sanford until just before the collision; and both he and the master admitted that they neither observed the tug and tow coming downstream, nor the Maryland coming up, and that no report was made to them by the lookout of the presence of either of the vessels, until seen as stated above. The harbor master, who saw and observed the ship's anchorage, properly and promptly, but not until after the collision had occurred, caused the ship to move to a proper and safe place.

Assuming that the Strathleven had the right to anchor where she did, she should have seen that her anchor did not drag, and, if necessary, put out an additional anchor or anchors (The Severn (D.C.) 113 F. 578; The Director (D.C.) 180 F. 606), and in no event should she have continued, in disregard of the rights of others, to pay out her chain in the presence of other shipping, until she virtually monopolized the channel. She had no right to assume that, upon her coming to anchor on one side of the channel, all navigation would cease; and during the time either that she was letting out her anchor chain, or fetching up on her anchor, she should have exercised the utmost diligence to have advised others of what she was doing, and, if necessary, have kicked or moved up on her engines, to prevent her unduly obstructing the fairway; and at least she should not, in such an emergency, have shut off her engines, thereby losing, instead of keeping, control of her movements.

For a collision thus brought about, she is not entitled to, and cannot claim, the privileges of an anchored vessel, as between herself and other shipping lawfully using the harbor, which had no reason to anticipate danger arising from the unusual and improper character of her movements. Culbertson v. The Southern Belle, 18 How. 584, 587, 15 L.Ed. 493; The Clara, 102 U.S. 200, 202, 26 L.Ed. 145; United States v. Transportation Co., 184 U.S. 247, 255, 22 Sup.Ct. 350, 46 L.Ed. 520; Marsden on Marine Collisions (6th Ed.) 479, and cases cited; Spencer on Marine Collisions, Secs. 99, 106; Hughes on Admiralty, 261, 262.

The obstruction of the channel, in the view taken by the court of this case, was in plain contravention as well of the state statutes and harbor rules and regulations applicable to the waters in question, as the federal statute on the subject. Section 2024 of the Code of Virginia prescribes the duties of harbor masters, as follows:

'Duties of Harbor Masters; Port Regulations.-- Each harbor master shall cause every vessel coming within his jurisdiction, to moor as soon as may be, and at such place as he may judge best for the general safety, not being within fifty fathoms

...