The Prudence
| Decision Date | 16 May 1911 |
| Citation | 190 F. 671 |
| Parties | THE PRUDENCE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Hughes & Little, for libelants.
Edward R. Baird, Jr., for respondent.
WADDILL District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This collision occurred largely as the result of misunderstanding of signals between the tugs as to the courses on which they were respectively proceeding; that is, whether on passing or crossing courses. The Rescue first gave the Prudence a signal of one whistle to pass port to port, and without waiting a reply from her, proceeded to receive from, and give to, the Berkley ferryboat on the opposite side of the river signals which tended to and misled the Prudence. The Rescue insists that the vessels were passing head on, and that upon giving the one signal, the Prudence should have kept to port and so passed; whereas the Prudence insists that the vessels were on crossing and not passing courses, and that the Rescue should have kept her course, and gone to starboard.
The collision could not have occurred had the two tugs seasonably observed the rules of navigation governing them at the time whether they be treated as on passing or crossing courses. It took place in the quiet harbor, in broad daylight, with the channel unobstructed, within the shadow of the wharves, and each tug could and should have kept herself under such control as to have avoided running into the other. The Rescue is clearly guilty of fault. She gave the first signal to the Prudence to pass port to port, and then two whistles to the ferryboat across the river, entirely out of the way, at a time and in such manner as to mislead the Prudence. There was no reason for this conduct on her part. The ferryboat was entirely out of the way; and to have been engaged in giving to or receiving from her signals at all was unnecessary, and to have done so after having initiated passing signals with the Prudence, without receiving a reply from her, was inexcusable. She was also guilty of fault in initiating passing signals to the Prudence, without first ascertaining the proper movements of the Prudence, whose vacillating course was certainly at the time such as to have warned the Rescue against proceeding either in close proximity to her or in giving to or accepting signals from her until her course had been determined. In answer to a question on cross-examination, the master of the Rescue stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial