The Stimson

Decision Date18 March 1919
Citation257 F. 762
PartiesTHE STIMSON. THE NORTH LAND.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Hughes Vandeventer & Eggleston, of Norfolk, Va., for libelant.

Haight Sanford & Smith and Henry M. Hewitt, of New York City, and Loyall, Taylor & White, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.

WADDILL District Judge.

The collision, the subject of this litigation, occurred on the Atlantic Ocean, on the early morning of the 13th of October 1918, between 4 and 4:30 o'clock, some 13 miles southeast of Hog Island Light, between the Stimson, a four-masted schooner of the burden of 693 tons, and the steamship North Land an oceangoing passenger ship of 3,282 gross tons. The vessels were en route from New York to Norfolk; the schooner on a course southeast half east, and the North Land on a course southwest three-quarters south, with the weather good wind moderate, sea smooth, and the night clear.

The schooner's case briefly is: That while on the starboard tack, in the vicinity in question, and proceeding at about 2 1/2 knots an hour, she observed the masthead light of the steamship some 8 to 10 miles away, bearing aft of her port beam, and subsequently, and when more than 2 miles away, she saw the steamship's green light. That at the time the schooner was provided with a skilled and competent crew, in charge of an experienced master, all at their proper stations, and efficiently performing their respective duties, with her running lights properly set and brightly burning. That upon observing the steamship's white light, being partly in the position of an overtaken vessel, she at once caused her regulation riding light for approaching vessels to be put out, placing the same in the most conspicuous position on the companionway of the after cabin, which was the best position in which it could be placed, and was in full view of the approaching steamship, and should have been seen 6 to 8 miles away. That in addition, as the steamship continued to approach, the schooner caused an electric light to be waved, and its light flashed upon her sails, to further attract the attention of the approaching steamship, and she kept her course and speed. That notwithstanding the plain obligation imposed upon the North Land, the burdened vessel, to avoid collision, as well as the risk thereof, with the overtaken vessel, the schooner, she continued to approach her at a rapid rate of speed, claimed to be 17 miles an hour, and ran into and collided with the Stimson, striking her about 30 feet aft of her stem on the port bow, seriously cutting into and crushing through the schooner from her rail down below to her water line, causing great damage, for the recovery of which this libel was filed.

The schooner further charges that the steamship was without a lookout properly stationed; that she was in charge of incompetent and unskillful navigators; that she failed to keep out of the way of the schooner, or to shape her course so as to avoid crossing ahead of her and pass under her stern; that she failed to slacken her speed, stop and reverse, and proceeded at a too rapid rate of speed; and that she, being the overtaking vessel, should not have collided with the schooner at all, but have avoided her by a wide margin.

The respondent in the main admits the circumstances of the two vessels approaching and coming together, as above stated, but contends: (1) That the collision was the result of inevitable accident, in that, when it was too late to avoid the consequences thereof, the connecting shaft of the steering gear broke and parted, through a latent defect, causing the injury. (2) That the Stimson was in command of an incompetent navigator, without a proper lookout, and that she omitted to exhibit her white or stern light in sufficient time to enable the navigators of the steamship to make the proper maneuver to avoid the collision.

The court will first consider the navigation of the Stimson, as bearing upon her fault, or participation in the causes which brought about the disaster. She was the favored vessel, as between herself and the steamship, and unless she was guilty of some fault in navigation, or in some way misled those directing the movement of the steamship, she cannot be held liable. In the view taken by the court of the testimony, the Stimson was in command of competent and efficient officers and crew, and before and at the time of the collision they were properly discharging their duties. They had properly set and burning brightly the regulation lights required by law and there was no reason that the same should not have been seen and observed in ample time to have enabled the steamship to avoid either collision or the risk thereof with the Stimson, which the evidence shows maintained its course and speed. That the lights of the schooner were set and burning is abundantly established by the testimony, and besides the steamer admits seeing the lights in ample time to have avoided the collision, with the exercise of proper care on the part of her navigators, but for the defect in the steering gear. She also admits seeing the stern or white light on the schooner, from half to three-quarters of a mile away, and the red light for at least half a mile. This establishes the existence and sufficiency of the lights, and why the same were not seen earlier is most probably...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • The Admiral Watson, 4511.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • May 21, 1920
    ... ... lights were observed by others in ample time to afford a safe ... passing, and the failure to observe these lights by the ... officers in charge of the Watson must be attributable to the ... insufficiency of the ship's lookout. The Stimson (D.C.) ... 257 F. 762; Id., 262 F. 245, ... C.C.A ... The failure ... to see the lights earlier was a clear omission of duty ... The ... Helgeland is a gasoline power vessel, 87 feet in length, ... 18-foot beam, two masts, schooner rigged, and equipped with ... 125 horse ... ...
  • Pendleton Bros. v. Morgan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 12, 1926
    ... ... The Sea Gull, 90 U. S. (23 Wall.) 165, 175-177, 23 L. Ed. 90; The Belgenland, 5 S. Ct. 860, 114 U. S. 355, 371, 372, 29 L. Ed. 152; The Richmond (D. C.) 114 F. 208, 213, 214; The Manaway (D. C.) 257 F. 476, 477; The Stimson (D. C.) 257 F. 762, 765 ...         The testimony of Holder, the boatswain on the Pendleton, and Clayton, the lookout, goes far to negative the contentions of the Pendleton, especially as to its failure to observe the lights of the Beaumont ...         Counsel for appellant insist ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT