The Pallanza
| Decision Date | 24 May 1911 |
| Docket Number | 279. |
| Citation | 189 F. 43 |
| Parties | THE PALLANZA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Harrington Bigham & Englar (D. Roger Englar, of counsel), for appellant.
Burlingham Montgomery & Beecher (James Forrester and Chauncey I. Clark of counsel), for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
The District Judge condemned the steamer for proceeding at too great a rate of speed in an unusually thick fog and for not reversing in time to prevent the collision. We concur in these conclusions. The schooner was held in fault because the mate, who was blowing the fog-horn and acting as lookout 'had an unnecessary amount of labor put upon him while the schooner was going as fast as the wind would permit her through a dense fog. From this finding the conclusion flows that it was 'a fault to require the mate to do so much.''
The steamer was at fault, first, for proceeding at too great a rate of speed; second, for not stopping when she heard the indistinct blast from the schooner, and, third, for not reversing when she distinctly heard the three blasts on her starboard bow. These manifest faults sufficiently account for the collision, and before the schooner is condemned, the court should be satisfied that her fault contributed to the accident. The direct testimony is uncontradicted that her foghorn was sounded at proper intervals by the mate, Borden, stationed at the forecastlehead. The assertion that the horn was not properly sounded is not only contrary to the testimony of the only witnesses who could see what was done on the schooner's deck, but is in conflict with the dictates of common sense and ordinary prudence. The proposition that a sailing vessel, practically helpless in a dense fog, would blow her horn at a place where the sails and deck load would prevent the sound from being heard, is too absurd for credence. The District Judge refused to make a finding to the effect that the fog-horn was sounded from amidships or behind the sails and expressed the opinion that such a finding could not be made on the evidence. He based his decision solely upon the proposition that Borden had too much to do. Having in mind the small amount of work which it is necessary to do on a sailing vessel after her sails are set and she is under way, we are unable to concur in this finding.
But conceding it to be well founded, it is in our opinion of no importance what Borden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. United States, 1231
... ... The Admiral Schley, 131 F. 433; The Pallanza ... ...
-
Empressa Hondurena de Vapores v. BANK LINE LTD., ETC.
... ... Hence, the Tenadores was in clear violation of International Rule 29 (33 U.S.C. § 1091) which requires a vessel to keep a proper lookout. Obviously, a captain, burdened with other duties, is an improper lookout. The Pallanza, 189 F. 43 (2d Cir. 1911); Moran Towing v. U. S., 80 F.Supp. 623 (S.D.N.Y.1948); The Corozal, 62 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y., 1945). As we noted in our findings of fact, Captain Stewart was the sole lookout of the Tenadores when it entered the anchorage. His testimony is replete with indications that he ... ...
-
THE AZUA
... ... I think that the Atlanta was at fault for not reducing speed immediately on entering the fog, and that her dereliction in this respect is sufficient to account for the collision. The Cherokee (C. C. A.) 45 F.(2d) 150; The Pallanza (C. C. A.) 189 F. 43 ... I cannot see that the schooner was at fault in any particular. Her speed was slow; her lights were burning. It is said that her fog signals were inadequate. The argument is twofold: First, that the horn was not being worked; and, second, that it was ... ...