THE VIKING NO. II

• Decision Date: 18 July 1930
• Docket Number: No. A-11070.,A-11070.
• Citation: 43 F.2d 196
• Parties: THE VIKING NO. II. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL NO. 33.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

43 F.2d 196 (1930)

THE VIKING NO. II.

THE NEW YORK CENTRAL NO. 33.

No. A-11070.

District Court, E. D. New York.

July 18, 1930.

Otto & Lyon, of New York City (Edward F. Platow, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City (Charles W. Hagen and Bertram E. Driscoll, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

GALSTON, District Judge.

This is a suit in admiralty brought by the owner of the Viking No. II, on its own behalf and on behalf of the master and crew of the tug, for salvage.

On February 10, 1928, the Diesel tug New York Central No. 33 was made fast alongside the steamship Crampton Anderson at Stapleton, Staten Island. Some time between 10 and 11 p. m., while all of the crew of tug No. 33, save its engineer, were aboard the Crampton Anderson, it was observed by somebody on the Crampton Anderson that tug No. 33 had broken adrift. On getting such word, Capt. Van Schaack jumped from the deck of the steamer, a distance of about twenty feet, to the deck of the tug. Those on board the Crampton Anderson saw that he was seriously injured. Capt. William Fennecken of the libelant's tug was also on board the Crampton Anderson, and as soon as he saw the tug No. 33 break adrift and Van Schaack jump and injure himself, and noted that no one was in the pilot house of the tug No. 33, he ran to his own tug, boarded her, and went in pursuit of the tug No. 33.

Thus the uncontroverted facts are that the New York Central tug went adrift; that at the time there was no one on board of her save the engineer, who was not in the pilot house; that her captain in jumping from the deck of the steamer to his own tug severely injured himself; that the Viking No. II promptly cast adrift and went in pursuit of the wild boat.

Controversy arises, however, about other circumstances. It is contended on the part of the claimant that the engineer Murray was duly qualified and competent to handle the tug No. 33 without assistance; that, although Capt. Van Schaack was seriously injured, he crawled to the engine room door and instructed engineer Murray to take charge of the tug; that Murray immediately went to the pilot house and brought the tug around to come up alongside of the ship or to land at the dock at Stapleton. It is also contended by the claimant that two other members of the crew of tug No. 33 got aboard the Viking No. II when she went in pursuit of tug No. 33.

All of the foregoing contentions of the claimant are denied by Capt. Fennecken of the Viking No. II. He said that when he boarded tug No. 33 there was no one in the pilot house, and that he was the only person who boarded the tug No. 33 when the two tugs came into contact. He contends that Murray, the engineer, went into the pilot house and followed his (Fennecken's) instructions, and not Van Schaack's, and that, although Murray took the controls, it was he (Fennecken) who held the wheel and navigated the boat and brought her to Pier No. 11 at Stapleton, Staten Island, so that the injured captain of tug No. 33 could be taken to the Marine Hospital located in that vicinity.

Obviously the two stories are in hopeless conflict without possibility of reconciliation. However, to determine the essential issue as to whether a salvage service was required and performed, it...