The St. Nicholas

• Citation: 49 F. 671
• Parties: THE ST. NICHOLAS. v. THE ST. NICHOLAS. JONES et al.
• Decision Date: 14 December 1891
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

49 F. 671

THE ST. NICHOLAS.

JONES et al. v. THE ST. NICHOLAS.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Eastern Division.

December 14, 1891

Lester & Ravenel, for libelants.

R. R Richards and W. R. Leakin, for respondent.

SPEER District Judge.

The libel filed in this cause alleges that Henry Jones, Louisa Giles, Joshua Giles, her husband, and 37 other persons were passengers on board the steam-boat St. Nicholas, Frank Boulineau, master, on July 20, 1889. The St. Nicholas was a regularly licensed and enrolled steam-vessel, and was engaged in navigating the inland rivers of Georgia as a common carrier of goods and passengers between the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, in this state. The particular voyage on which she was engaged at the time of the incidents described in the libel was from Savannah to Brunswick through the inland passage. Libelants were recognized as passengers for that voyage, which was commenced about 8:30 o'clock P.M. on the day above mentioned. After proceeding on her course for about one hour, the St. Nicholas collided with the draw-bridge across St. Augustine creek, the draw-bridge of the Savannah & Tybee Railway Company, which was at the time closed. That at the time of the collision the vessel had just turned out of the Savannah river into St. Augustine creek and, after proceeding in said creek from one-half to three-quarters of a mile, collided with the draw-bridge. The collision rendered it impossible for the steam-boat to proceed further on her voyage, and she accordingly returned to Savannah.

It is further averred that by the collision all the forward part of the saloon and hurricane deck of the boat was carried away or crushed in and caused to fall to the lower deck, causing the libelants, most of whom were on the saloon deck, to be thrown violently against the deck or to fall to the lower deck, and to be crushed and bruised by the falling timbers of the deck and the timbers of the draw-bridge, under which the boat was forced, thus causing the injuries which are set out in detail in the libel. These are very numerous and various. It will suffice, to indicate their general character, to state briefly that Henry Jones, it is alleged, was crushed and bruised in such a manner that he lost his right eye, and was so crushed and bruised in his body and person as to render him incapable to follow his ordinary vocation, which was that of a porter in a store. He suffered great bodily pain and anguish, and was confined to his house and bed, and had to employ the services of a physician and of a nurse to treat him for his injuries. Louisa Giles, being in that part of the steam-boat which was forced under the bridge, was caught between the bridge and the decks of the steam-boat, and crushed to that extent that her right thigh and right arm were broken, and her face and body badly bruised. Mary Anderson was caught between the bridge and the decks of the steam-boat, and received serious injuries in her spine and left hip, and had her right arm and right shoulder seriously injured. William Brown received serious internal injuries, and since then has not been able to breathe with freedom; has not been able since then to follow his ordinary avocation of mattress-maker and carpenter. Cecillia Beasley was knocked on the head, her left shoulder dislocated, and chest crushed. Her memory and hearing have been affected. Most of the injuries, as described, are serious, and generally expenditures for physicians and nurses have been made necessary, it is alleged; and, wherever the party injured was a married woman, her husband has been joined as a libelant to recover for the loss of the comfort and services of his wife and for his outlay in securing medical attention and nursing for her.

There are several interventions filed seeking to recover damages for the deaths of several passengers who were crushed and bruised in the collision to that extent that they either were taken up dead or died after lingering for a short time. These interventions are brought by parties who, under the laws of Georgia, would be entitled to recover for the unlawful homicide of a person bearing the relation of that occupied by the several passengers who were killed to the several interveners, respectively. There are yet other interventions by which passengers who were injured prefer their claims in that form for damages and compensation.

Since the court has confined its attention to the question whether or not the St. Nicholas is liable, as claimed, it will not be necessary to give a more detailed statement of the character of the injuries and the amount of damages claimed by the libelants.

The grounds of negligence set forth in the libel are as follows: The bridge with which the steamer collided had been constructed across the St. Augustine creek for a considerable time. Its position was well known to those engaged in navigating the inland route between Savannah and Brunswick. That at the time of the collision the draw-bridge was marked by two red lights, one of which, by an amendment to the libel, is described as being in the center of the draw, and the other on the western side of the draw, or abutment of the bridge. These lights were visible to persons approaching the bridge from the Savannah river through St. Augustine creek. The lights were in the position where they usually were when said bridges were closed. That the master of the St. Nicholas was himself acting as pilot, and so negligently managed her as to cause her to violently collide with the bridge, force her bow under the draw, and thereby injure libelants in the manner described. It was further negligent, it is charged, that the master did not so regulate the speed of his vessel as to have her under full control until he had ascertained that the draw was open; and that it was negligence to proceed so near the bridge at such a rate of speed as to render it impossible for him to arrest his boat, and thereby prevent the collision. A further ground of negligence is that as the steamer was approaching the bridge it was the regular schedule time for the passage of the passenger train of the Savannah & Tybee Railroad. The train was then actually approaching the bridge, and it was negligence, carelessness, and unskillfulness on the part of the master of the boat to approach the bridge at such a rate of speed as, under the circumstances, would render it impossible for him to escape the danger resulting from the fact that the bridge must be closed for the passage of the train. It is further alleged as negligence while the steamer had on board about 500 passengers, thereby crowing her decks and greatly increasing the dangers attendant upon a collision, and while it was necessary to observe extreme care and caution in approaching the bridge at night, and especially to have a lookout at the bow of the boat to see whether said bridge was open or closed, that there was no lookout stationed at the bow, nor any lookout stationed where he could see ahead of the boat as they were approaching the bridge immediately preceding the collision, from which negligence the collision directly resulted, because by the presence of such a lookout it might have been ascertained that the bridge was closed. It is further alleged that the passengers in no manner contributed to the collision, but were quietly occupying the saloon deck which had been allotted to them, and which was a proper place for them.

Henry R. Duval, receiver of the Florida Railway & Navigation Company, has interposed a claim to the St. Nicholas, and answers to the charges of the libel. The answer recites that the St. Nicholas is owned by him as receiver. The collision with the draw-bridge is admitted, but he denies all negligence. He admits that the bridge had been built across the St. Augustine creek for a considerable time. Its position was well known to all persons engaged in navigating the inland rouge between the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, and also admits that the draw-bridge was marked by two red lights, one of which was in the center of the draw, and the other on the western side of the draw, or abutment of the bridge. He denies that the lights were in the position where they usually were when said bridge was closed, but, on the contrary, states that they were in the position where they usually were when the bridge was open. The master of the St. Nicholas was a pilot, a qualified and authorized navigator. The bridge is a well-known obstruction to navigation. The tidal currents did not run parallel to the bridge piers, and it is too low, and is not properly protected by fender piles. The currents set in diagonally to the bridge, and with the best management are apt to carry boats against the bridge, so as to cause collisions. The Tybee road crosses the river at a sharp point, and the tide, both ebb and flood, runs diagonally across, compelling vessels to make an angle in going through the draw. It is a strong current, making it difficult to steer a vessel as large as the St. Nicholas through the draw without striking. Such vessel is compelled to approach the draw with some speed in order to pass safely. The master of the St. Nicholas was unable to discover that the draw was closed until said vessel was within 300 feet of the bridge, or other short distance. He then discovered that the draw was closed, and used every precaution to avoid a collision. He was in the pilot-house, and gave the proper signals to the engineer to back her all he could, which signals were immediately obeyed, and despite all their precaution, and the utmost care and diligence to avoid the collision, it was inevitable, and immediately thereafter took place.

The collision was wholly due to the neglect of the parties in charge of the bridge, who kept...