The Santiago
| Citation | 160 F. 742 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 2. |
| Parties | THE SANTIAGO. THE PHILADELPHIA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
N Dubois Miller and H. Alan Dawson, for libelant.
John F Lewis and Francis C. Adler, for respondent.
This libel is filed to recover damages for the total loss of the barge Santiago and her cargo, which occurred while she was lying at anchor inside of the Delaware Breakwater early on the morning of December 3, 1904, as a result of being run down by the pilot boat Philadelphia. The Santiago was built of wood in June 1901, and was comparatively new. She was 271 feet long over all, 46 feet 3 inches beam, with a draught of 20 feet when fully loaded. She had four masts, and was schooner rigged. On the after part of her main deck, about 20 feet forward of her stern, there was a two-story house, the lower one about 25 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 7 or 8 feet high, above which was another house about 11 feet wide by 20 feet long and 7 feet high, divided into the pilot house and men's quarters aft, and surrounded by a deck on the roof of the lower house, 2 or 3 feet wide, on all but the after end, where it was about 5 feet wide. On November 30, 1904 the Santiago, loaded with a cargo of coal, manned by a captain, an engineer who acted also as a mate, a cook, and three seamen (all Portuguese), left Newport News for Providence, R.I., and on the afternoon of December 2, 1904, on account of threatening weather, put into the Delaware Breakwater. She was being towed by the tug Cuba in company with two other barges, the Canton and the Mantanzas. She came to anchor at about 3:45 o'clock that afternoon to the westward of the south end of the Northern Breakwater, with the Cuba the north of her, the Canton north of the Cuba, and the Mantanzas about 600 feet to the eastward of the Santiago. There were a great many other vessels there, this being an anchorage ground. The barge was heading eastward. Neither moon nor stars were shining, and it was a very dark night. The sky was overcast, the wind blowing fresh from the northeast, with occasional sprinkles of rain. A vigilant anchor watch had been maintained, and two riding lights, one in the starboard rigging of the foremast about 25 feet above deck, and the other on a staff on the top of the cabin near the stern, were set and burning up to within five minutes of the accident, when the after light was blown out, and the watch had taken it to the pilot house to relight it. This was about 2:45 o'clock in the morning, and while so engaged the pilot boat Philadelphia collided with the barge on the starboard side abaft the spanker rigging and abreast of the forward end of the cabin. The force of the blow cut into the plank sheer below the water line, and she sank in about one hour.
The libel charges that the collision and damage were not due to any fault or neglect on the part of the libelant or those on board the Santiago, but were wholly due to the fault of those in charge of the Philadelphia (1) in that they had no proper lookout; (2) that they had no competent officer in charge; (3) that they entered the Breakwater at an improper speed without taking the precautions needful in navigating through a place of anchorage during the night; (4) in not avoiding and keeping clear of the Santiago, and in not stopping or reversing her engine in time to avoid a collision; (5) in not changing her helm and passing under the barge's stern; (6) in not taking ordinary precaution to avoid anchored vessels in a place and at a time where they were in great number.
All of these allegations are denied in the answer, wherein it is claimed the pilot boat (1) was in charge of competent officers; (2) that she entered the Breakwater at proper speed; (3) that as soon as the Santiago was and could be seen the engines of the Philadelphia were promptly stopped and reversed; (4) and her helm put hard astarboard in an effort to avoid the collision. The answer further avers that the collision was wholly due to the fault of those in charge of the Santiago in failing to exhibit proper anchor lights on the barge, as required by law, and in failing to have a proper anchor watch.
The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that there was an anchor watch maintained until 2:45 a.m., about 5 or 10 minutes before the collision, at which time, however there was nobody on the deck of the Santiago, and that the regulation anchor lights had been put up, one in the starboard rigging of the foremast, about 25 feet above deck, and another on the flag pole fastened at the end of the deckhouse. These lights were not in the best condition, and would blow out in heavy puffs of wind. The forward light had been protected by a piece of bagging at the bottom of it, placed there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. Debuse Barras Company
... ... Co., 1 Cir., 104 F. 302 ... 7 La Bourgogne, 2 Cir., 86 F. 475; The Helen, D.C., 1 F. 916; cf. The Victor, 5 Cir., 153 F.2d 200 ... 8 The James Gray, 21 How. 184, 62 U.S. 184, 16 L.Ed. 106; Grauds v. The American Trader, D.C., 88 F.Supp. 45; The Santiago", D.C., 160 F. 742; cf. The St. Charles, 19 How. 108, 60 U.S. 108, 15 L.Ed. 563; Rogers v. Saeger, 10 Cir., 247 F.2d 758 ... 9 The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186, 15 S.Ct. 804, 39 L.Ed. 943; Carr v. Hermosa Amusement Corp., 9 Cir., 137 F.2d 983; The Degama, 5 Cir., 150 F. 323 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
THE BRIGHT
... ... Machan (The City of New York), 147 U.S. 72, 85, 13 S.Ct. 211, 216, 37 L.Ed. 84, 85; The Minnie, 4 Cir., 100 F. 128. Decisions upon which counsel for the Hawaiian rely, such as The James Gray, 21 How. 184, 62 U.S. 184, 16 L.Ed. 106, The Santiago, D.C., 160 F. 742, and The Chester O. Swain, 2 Cir., 76 F.2d 890, are not believed to be in conflict with the conclusion here reached, because in those cases there was an actual admission of failure to show the regulation lights ... It is necessary to say merely a word respecting ... ...
-
The Europe
... ... tide then running, it is apparent that she would have readily ... swung back if the chain had been seasonably released. Upon ... these facts, we think it very clear that fault is to be ... imputed to both the Heipershausen and the Richmond.' ... And in ... The Santiago (D. C.) 160 F. 742, 744, these facts were shown: ... 'About ... five minutes before the collision Fidelis Mattis, who was on ... watch, discovered the light in the stern had blown out. It ... was reported to the captain who directed him to take it to ... the pilot house and relight ... ...
-
Grauds v. The American Trader, A-16488
... ... The Clara, 102 U.S. 200, 26 L.Ed. 145; The Erastus Corning, D.C., 25 F. 572; The Guyandotte, D.C., 39 F. 575; The Santiago, D.C., 160 F. 742; and The Director, D.C., 180 F. 606 ... Had an anchor watch been on duty on the Everalda, it could have been expected to note the failure of the anchor lights to function, to have at once notified the sleeping second officer or to have remedied the condition ... ...