The Pilot Boy

• Decision Date: 08 May 1902
• Docket Number: 424.
• Citation: 115 F. 873
• Parties: THE PILOT BOY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

115 F. 873

THE PILOT BOY.

No. 424.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 8, 1902

J. P K. Bryan (Trenholm, Rhett, Miller & Whaley and M. Rutledge Rivers, on the brief), for appellants.

Julian Mitchell, Jr. (Mitchell & Smith, on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges, and KELLER, District Judge.

SIMONTON Circuit Judge.

This case comes up on appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern district of South Carolina, sitting in admiralty. It is a case of collision in a part of the continuous water way of inland navigation along the Atlantic seaboard,-- a highway much used by vessels of limited draught. The schooner Beulah Benton, of 36 tons register, 57 feet on her keel, 19 feet beam, and drawing 4 feet when loaded, with full complement of tackle, apparel, and furniture, left Edisto Island on the night of January 15 1901, on a voyage to Charleston, S.C. Her regular master was sick, and she was in charge of the mate, as master, with a crew of three men, besides himself. Her cargo consisted of 66 1/2 bales of sea-island cotton, of which 34 bales were on deck. She had proceeded on her voyage, and had entered Stono river, above the mouth of Rantowles creek. She had the wind abeam, blowing fresh. Her course was about N.N.E. She had up mainsail, topsail, foresail, and jib, on the port side, and was proceeding about five miles an hour. About the hour of 4:40 of the morning of January 17th, she sighted the light of the steamer Pilot Boy, which was on her voyage from Charleston to Beaufort, S.C., approaching her in the same river. In a short time afterward the schooner and steamer came into collision, the steamer striking the schooner at an angle of about 45 degrees on her starboard side, between her masts, and cutting her nearly in two. The schooner filled with water, and her cargo was seriously damaged. The deck cargo was taken off at Hart's wharf, on the Stono river,-- a place not far from the spot where the collision occurred. The schooner was towed to Charleston, the cargo in her hold unloaded, and the schooner repaired. The Pilot Boy is a side-wheel steamer, about-- long, which for several years has run regular trips through these waters, by night as well as day, between Charleston and Beaufort. The accident occurred in that part of the Stono river which flows between John's Island and the mainland; having on the easterly side the broad and level marshes of John's Island, and on the westerly side similar marshes attached to the mainland. The exact spot of the collision was somewhere southward of the mouth of Rantowles creek. The witnesses differ as to its location. The schooner and the cargo were owned by different persons. The libel in this case was filed by both the owner of the schooner and the owner of the cargo seeking damages from the Pilot Boy. Claim and answer were filed. Testimony was taken in the presence of the court. After argument, the libel was dismissed; the court holding the steamer without fault causing the collision. Exceptions were taken, appeal was allowed, and the cause is here on the assignments of error.

The testimony in this case offers no exception to the confusion and conflict which so frequently characterise the litigation over collisions in courts of admiralty. The salient facts, therefore, must be carefully noted. The principles of law governing cases of this character must be kept in mind and applied to these facts, as far as they can be, as disclosed in the testimony.

This is a collision between a steamer and a sailing vessel, occurring in a narrow channel in the nighttime. Under articles 20 and 21 of the sailing rules, when a steamer and a sailing vessel are approaching each other in such a direction as to involve risk of collision, the steamer must keep out of the way of the sailing vessel, carefully watching her movements, and the sailing vessel must keep her course. The reasons for this rule are given in New York & B. Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia & S. Steam Nav. Co., 22 How. 461, 16 L.Ed. 397. And the rule is enforced in very many decided cases. The Colorado, 91 U.S. 692, 23 L.Ed. 379. If the steamer fails to keep out of the way of the sailing vessel, she is responsible for the collision, unless the sailing vessel is in fault. The Sea Gull, 23 Wall. 165, 23 L.Ed. 90. When a steamer is approaching a sailing vessel, the steamer is required to exercise all necessary precautions to avoid risk of collision. If this be not done, prima facie she is chargeable. Steamship Co. v. Rumball, 21 How. 372, 16 L.Ed. 144. When a steamer has notice that a schooner is before her and near her track, she is bound to take efficient measures to avoid the schooner. New York & V. S. S. Co. v. Calderwood, 19 How. 241, 15 L.Ed. 612. If she adopts such measures, and they would have been effective if the schooner had not changed her course, the steamer is not chargeable for the consequences. The Potomac, 8 Wall. 590, 19 L.Ed. 511; The S. C. Tryon, 105 U.S. 267, 16 L.Ed. 1026.

In the case at bar the schooner and steamer were approaching each other in a narrow channel. The lights of each were seen by the other. The collision having occurred, the burden is on the steamer to show that she took the proper precautions, and that these would have proved effective if the schooner had not changed her course. The Java, Fed. Cas. No. 7,233.

There is another rule of law governing cases of collision: It is the duty of every steamer navigating the thoroughfares of commerce to have a trustworthy lookout, besides the helmsman, and, in case of collision, the absence of such lookout is prima facie evidence that the collision was caused by the fault of the steamer. The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 13 L.Ed. 1058. When acting as the officer of the deck, and having charge of the navigation, the master of a steamer is not a proper lookout. The Ottawa, 3 Wall. 269, 18 L.Ed. 165. Proper lookouts are persons other than officers of the deck or the helmsman, and they should be stationed on the forward part of the vessel. Id. Elevated positions on a steamer, such as the hurricane deck, are not as favorable situations for the lookout as those on the forward deck near the stem. In the case at bar the lookout was the helmsman on the hurricane deck. But the absence of a lookout is not conclusive of fault. It may appear that the collision could not have been guarded against by a lookout. The Farragut, 10 Wall. 334, 19 L.Ed. 946; The Annie Lindsley, 104 U.S. 185, 26 L.Ed. 716; The Blue Jacket, 144 U.S. 371, 12 Sup.Ct. 711, 36 L.Ed. 469; The Victory, 168 U.S. 410, 18 Sup.Ct. 149, 42 L.Ed. 519. Nevertheless the burden of proof in this regard also is on the steamer.

We must then look first to the testimony offered in behalf of the Pilot Boy, to see whether she adopted the proper precautions to avoid the schooner, and whether the absence of a proper lookout caused or contributed to the disaster. There are only two witnesses on the Pilot Boy who can speak, of personal knowledge, as to all the facts occurring just before the collision. These are Hamilton, the helmsman, and Townsend, an ordinary hand, who helped Hamilton at the wheel. Hamilton was the pilot and lookout. Other witnesses testify as to certain facts and circumstances attending the collision. These two alone can speak as to what occurred from the time the schooner was first sighted and the time when the collision became imminent. In order to understand the testimony, it is necessary to obtain some idea of the locus in quo. The Stono river, as it increases its distance from the ocean, becomes quite narrow. Its course about the place of the collision is from the...