The Shawmut

• Decision Date: 11 November 1919
• Docket Number: 70-72,,97.
• Citation: 261 F. 616
• Parties: THE SHAWMUT. THE T. MORRIS PEROT. SOUTHERN S.S. CO. v. RANDOLPH et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

261 F. 616

THE SHAWMUT. THE T. MORRIS PEROT. SOUTHERN S.S. CO. v. RANDOLPH et al.

Nos. 70-72,, 97.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

November 11, 1919

Howard M. Long, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Randolph and Olsen.

H. Alan Dawson, Biddle, Paul & Jayne, and M. Hampton Todd, all of Philadelphia, Pa., Proctors for owners of the Shawmut and the T. Morris Perot.

DICKINSON District Judge.

These cases all grow out of the same occurrence. This occurrence was the collision of the steamer Shawmut with the three-masted coasting schooner T. Morris Perot on the night of September 28, 1913. The collision occurred just south of Fenwick Island Lightship, in the Atlantic Ocean, off the Delaware coast. A libel was filed by the schooner, and a cross-bill by the steamer. There are libels also by the master and crew of the schooner for personal injuries.

The facts of this collision called forth comments at the argument from the proctors of the respective parties, which each in its way fitly presents the general aspect of this case. One was to the effect that the question presented was whether the broad Atlantic was wide enough to enable two vessels to pass each other in safety when each had a clear view of the approach of the other for a distance of nearly, if not quite three miles. The other was the statement that this collision could not have occurred without the grossest negligence on the part of one of these vessels or both.

In view of the latter statement, as each is seeking to put the blame upon the other, the easy solution of the problem is suggestive of a finding that they were both to blame. However easy this may be, it is not a satisfactory solution, without more light being thrown upon what led up to the collision.

In getting at the truth of the responsible causes of happenings on the water, the inquirer is hampered by certain inbred and ineradicable predilections and prejudices and traditional feelings, with which those who follow the water are imbued. One which has often been observed is that every one on a boat identifies himself with his boat, and is quite as slow to admit the blame to be there as the ordinary man is to admit the fault to be his. Another is the class feeling which is aroused and always manifested. The navigator of every steamer looks upon the navigators of sailing vessels as the personification of careless and reckless management. He is not only prepared to believe, he assumes it to be the fact in every case of collision of steamer and sailing vessel that the latter was being navigated in disregard of every rule of navigation, and of everything except what pertained directly to the handling of the vessel. Sailing masters retort in kind, and are in their turn ever ready to believe that steamers have no regard for the safety of sailing vessels, and refuse to recognize the right of the latter to navigate the same waters with themselves. These opposing attitudes and points of view are sure to produce conflicts of testimony in every litigation. The impartial inquirer must perforce find a viewpoint of his own, and hold every one to the observance of the rules and regulations which are laid down for the common good and for the guidance of all.

To find a beginning for the inquiry to be made, we start with the proposition that, when steamer and sailing vessel are on courses which cross, the duty is imposed upon the steamer to alter her course, if this will avoid danger of collision, and, in order that this rule may accomplish its purpose, the correlative duty is imposed upon the sailing vessel to hold her course. The only justification for nonobservance of this rule is some danger of navigation, or some emergency, which forbids observance. When, therefore, as here, there was no justification for a departure from this rule of action, other than some sudden emergency, and no explanation which accounts for what occurred, except neglect of the rule, the inquiry is narrowed to the point or points indicated.

The finding is made of the fact, before intimated, that under the conditions existing the lights of the schooner could be made out at a distance of nearly, if not quite, three miles, and those of the steamer at a greater distance. This fact compels the inference that the rule adverted to was disobeyed or there would have been no collision, and as the primary duty of the steamer was to be outside of what may be called the zone of collision, it practically imposes upon the steamer the burden of causing it to appear why the collision occurred, if the steamer observed the rule.

This burden the very fair and capable proctor appearing for the steamer recognizes and assumes, and is ready with an explanation, which is clear and intelligible in its statement, and the theory of it is consistent with all the facts which are not in dispute. The theory is met, if at all, by the version of the disputed facts which is given by the master and crew of the schooner.

There is a minor fact which has some bearing upon the main fact to be found. This relates to the relative speeds of the two vessels. The schooner was running free before a fairly fresh breeze, and was running almost dead before the wind. She was making about nine knots an hour. The steamer was making about the same speed. Some question has been made of when the steamer made out the schooner's lights. All question as to this is resolved by the admission, frankly made on behalf of the steamer, that she made out the lights in ample time to enable her to so maneuver as to avoid the collision.

The theory of the steamer begins with the averment of the fact that she had notice of the presence of the schooner when the vessels were a mile apart in distance and between three and four minutes in time. The next fact averment is that the schooner showed a red light only. The schooner, in its general direction, was bound south; the steamer, north.

The conditions named indicated that the vessels were passing on converging lines, and that if both vessels held to their courses they would collide, or that the steamer would cross the bows or cross astern of the schooner. These conditions further dictated that the steamer should pass under the stern of the schooner, and to assure this should port her helm.

The next averment of fact is that the steamer did port her helm, and further that she slowed her engines, and followed this (as will later appear) by reversing them. The assertion is confidently made that the effect of what was done was to turn the course of the steamer to the eastward and away from the course of the schooner, and that if the schooner had held her course, as she was expected to do, and as it is further asserted was called upon to do, the vessels would have passed in safety. On this theory, what occurred is accounted for by averments of what was done by the schooner.

Up to the time the steamer's helm was ported, the schooner, as before stated, was showing a red light. Almost at that moment the red light disappeared and a green light was shown. This meant collision, or grave danger of it, because it meant that the schooner was being thrown athwart the course of the steamer and right under her bows. It was then the engines were reversed. The conditions immediately after the collision which then occurred are said to bear out the theory thus outlined. Before a change of course on the part of either vessel, the steamer bore off the schooner's port bow. If there had been a collision under these conditions, the steamer would have struck the schooner on the latter's port side. When the collision did occur, the schooner was struck on her starboard side, and finally was directly across the bows of the steamer. This position of schooner and steamer could not possibly have been brought about, except by a changing of the course of the schooner to the eastward.

All this is entirely clear, and is further confirmed by the statements made by the master of the schooner after the collision. The judgment would rest satisfied with the finding indicated, except that the query might enter and linger in the mind why the schooner was guilty of such gross negligence as is implied in this version of the facts.

The theory of the steamer has ready the required explanation. It lies in the following facts: The schooner was short-handed. As a consequence, she had no lookout during the mate's watch. The watch was about being changed when the collision occurred. The schooner had been, as before stated, running before the wind and was winged out. The wind was hauling around to eastward, and coming more and more from that quarter. It came in puffs, and each puff was little more from the east than the one before it. When the master came on deck to relieve the mate, he came a while before the mate's watch was up. He saw that it would be necessary to change the sails. This involved jibing the spanker from port to starboard. He decided to do this then, and not wait. He was getting ready for this as the steamer approached, and did it at about the time the steamer shifted her helm. The helm of the schooner was put to starboard to assist in this maneuver thus bringing her head to...