The Raleigh
| Decision Date | 03 December 1890 |
| Citation | 44 F. 781 |
| Parties | HARDY v. THE RALEIGH AND THE NIAGARA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Mr Hyland, for libelant.
Edward L. Owen, for the Niagara.
E. P Wheeler, for the Raleigh.
The libelant's canal-boat J. E. Heaton was sunk by a collision with the steam-boat Raleigh, which took place in the Hudson river, a little below Inglewood dock, after sunrise, and about half past 5 o'clock in the morning of May 8, 1889. The canal-boat was at the time the port vessel of the first tier of a flotilla of canal-boats which had been brought in tow of the steam-boat Niagara from Albany, bound for New York city. The flotilla was composed of six tiers of canal-boats. Owing to a dense fog, the Niagara brought her tows to anchor at about 2 o'clock a.m., near the mid-channel of the river, and kept them there until the collision took place. At the time of the collision the tide was running slightly flood in the middle of the river, and the Niagara was headed down the river southerly, and somewhat easterly, and her tows were behind her, stretching in a northerly or north-westerly line up the river. The first tier of tows was about 250 feet distant from the Niagara on a hawser, and the other tows were connected with the first by hawser. The tug Easton, which was under the control of the Niagara, and was her helper on the voyage, was stationed on the port side of the fourth tier of tows. The Raleigh had left Inglewood dock to proceed down the river to New York. As the tide in shore was running a little ebb. she had made her landing by going below and rounding up to the dock. Upon leaving the dock she started in a south-easterly direction and gradually rounded towards the south as she crossed the river, until she headed down the river, when she took a south-westerly course, to reach the westerly side of the channel. While on this latter course, and when going at a speed of four or five knots an hour, she struck the libelant's canal-boat on the latter's port side. The fog was so dense at the time that vessels could not see one another further than about 50 feet away. The proper fog-signals were maintained on board the Niagara during the time she and her flotilla lay at anchor, but no fog-signals were given on board the tug Easton, or on the libelant's canal-boat, or on any of the canal-boats of the flotilla, nor were any ordered to be given on the tug or tows by the Niagara. The Raleigh maintained proper fog-signals on her part during all her movements. She also reversed her engines as soon as she discovered the canal-boat. The libelant went down with his boat, and was rescued in an unconscious state and in consequence of the shock and exposure his health was permanently impaired. The district court decreed for the libelant $2,175.13 for the loss of his boat, cargo, and personal effects, together with $5,000 for his personal injuries, and condemned each of the steamers to pay half of the decree, and such part of the other's half as might not be collected. The owners of both steam-boats have appealed.
The district judge held the Niagara in fault because no fog-signals were given by her helper, the Easton. He held the Raleigh in fault for continuing her navigation from Inglewood dock in so dense a fog in a river where other vessels were liable to be encountered, and also because her speed was excessive under the circumstances of the case.
It is not necessary to discuss the question whether the Raleigh was justified in leaving her dock, and attempting to proceed on her trip, in the dense fog that prevailed. In the present case, that question involves merely an abstract proposition. It is enough to establish her liability that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Clyde S.S. Co.
...The Luray (D.C.) 24 F. 751; The Oregon (D.C.) 27 F. 751; The Magna Charta, 1 Asp.Mar.Cas. 153; The Raleigh (D.C.) 41 F. 527; Id. (C.C.) 44 F. 781; The Martello (D.C.) 34 F. 71; (C.C.) 39 F. 507; Id., 153 U.S. 64, 14 Sup.Ct. 723, 38 L.Ed. 637; The Colorado, 91 U.S. 692, 23 L.Ed. 379; The Mic......
-
Willis v. Tugs Tramp and Mars
...their own, where they are under the control and management of a superior tug. In The Raleigh, 41 F. 527, and the related case, Hardy v. The Raleigh, 44 F. 781, the helper tug EASTON was under the control of the tug NIAGARA, which had in tow six tiers of canal boats. The RALEIGH collided wit......
-
THE SOCONY NO. 9, 138.
...the doctrine has nothing to commend it. No decision goes so far; those that are thought to do so are clearly distinguishable. In The Raleigh (C. C.) 44 F. 781, Judge Wallace held a tug, because its helper at the end of a tow some eight hundred feet long, did not give fog signals, when the w......
-
Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...this case. If signals from the tow were required as a matter of prudence, it belonged to the Media to be at hand to give them. The Raleigh, 44 F. 781, 783. The provision the old rules by which the tow was there held bound to signal also, has been dropped from the new rules; and the decision......