United States v. M/V WUERTTEMBERG, 1091

Decision Date10 June 1963
Docket Number1098.,No. 1091,1091
Citation219 F. Supp. 211,1963 AMC 1554
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Libelant, v. M/V WUERTTEMBERG, Respondent. Alexander H. HOOD, Libelant, v. M/V WUERTTEMBERG, her engines, boilers, tackle, apparel and appurtenances, Respondent.

Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., Thomas P. Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C., Thomas F. McGovern, Atty., Admiralty & Shipping Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for libelant United States.

Ben Scott Whaley and Nathaniel L. Barnwell, Charleston, S. C., for libelant Alexander H. Hood.

Harold A. Mouzon and B. Allston Moore, Jr., Charleston, S. C., for respondent, M/V Wuerttemberg, etc.

WYCHE, District Judge (sitting by designation).

An action was commenced in admiralty by the United States of America against the German motor vessel Wuerttemberg for damages done to the Swerve, a Navy minesweeper, in a collision between the German motor vessel Wuerttemberg and the United States minesweeper the Swerve, on the early morning of June 25, 1958, in the entrance to the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. A cross-libel was filed by the German owners of the Wuerttemberg against the United States for damages suffered by the Wuerttemberg in the collision. Captain Alexander H. Hood filed an action against the German vessel Wuerttemberg for personal injuries which he suffered in the collision on board the Swerve.

The actions were, by agreement of the parties, consolidated for trial, upon the pleadings and the evidence taken in open court and partly by deposition.

Each party contended that the collision was entirely due to the negligence and faulty navigation on the part of the other.

At the conclusion of the testimony taken in open court, I requested counsel for the parties to submit to me proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Admiralty Rule 43. Rules in Admiralty in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of South Carolina, together with written briefs.

After careful consideration of the written briefs, depositions, exhibits and the evidence in the cases, and in compliance with Rule 46½, Rules of Practice in Admiralty and Maritime Cases, 28 U.S.C.A., I find the facts specially and state my conclusions of law thereon, in the above cases, as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The two vessels involved in the collision herein are the U.S.S. SWERVE, a wooden minesweeper, 172 feet long, 35 feet beam, 754 tons displacement fully loaded and 658 tons displacement lightly loaded, her draft was about 10.6 feet, she had four engines, two screws, each with special variable pitch propellers; on actual test from full speed ahead to dead in the water the Swerve takes 20 seconds to stop and travels a ship length and a half or 247 feet in so doing; and the German merchant vessel M/V WUERTTEMBERG, a steel motor vessel, 492 feet 10 inches long, 61 feet 4 inches beam, 25 feet 6 inches depth, 6127 gross tons, 9270 dead weight tons, she had one propeller driven by two diesel engines. A diesel vessel like the Wuerttemberg must bring her diesel engine to a complete stop then reverse a valve mechanism, then apply the air starting mechanism to get the engine started in the reverse direction. This takes 30 to 40 seconds and then after the engine is started backwards, the throttle has to be opened to get power astern. With power going astern, it would then take from one minute and a half to three minutes to stop the vessel, depending on the load. During this time she would continue to advance, even on a right rudder, along her original course, for about 250 yards.

The Swerve has a maximum top speed of 15.8 knots; full speed of 14 knots; standard speed of 12 knots; one-third speed of 4 knots.

The Wuerttemberg was designed to make 16.29 knots but did not test out to her designed speed; she would make 14 knots at 100 r.p.m. or full speed, and 8.2 knots at 60 r.p.m. half speed.

2. Both the Swerve and the Wuerttemberg were equipped with radar. The Wuerttemberg had an American-built Pathfinder RCA radar, a well-known and dependable set, installed on a great many merchant ships. It has range rings, one mile, two miles, four miles, eight miles, twenty miles and forty miles. If in good order, it could have picked up Fort Sumter at eight miles and a ship like the Swerve at eight miles.

The Swerve was equipped with an SPS5B radar with a graduated scale which can be expanded, and a manual crank to get the range or bearing. If in good order, it could have picked up a ship the size of the Wuerttemberg at 15,000 yards or 12½ miles.

The Swerve was also equipped with and was using a special device called an Underwater Object Locator or UOL, which is not like sonar; is not used for listening to other ship screws; and is not capable of listening but has a high frequency beam for mine detection. This beam is capable of detecting the anchor chain and anchor of a buoy, and the profile of the channel. It locates exact range within five feet and bearing within one degree. Its most effective range is about 700 yards, depending on the temperature and condition of the water with a maximum range of 1000 yards under perfect conditions. It works better in rough than in calm water since calm water contains pre-existing noise in the water itself. On this day the water was calm and the effective range was 500 yards.

3. June 25, 1958, the day of the collision began clear, it was dead calm. A bank of dense fog was encountered lying like a belt across the channel from the Fort Sumter or west side to the Sullivans Island or east side.

There was other traffic in the area which was operating partially in clear and partially in fog. These were the Navy tug Penobscot, which was inbound ahead of the Wuerttemberg, which was also inbound; and the submarine Redfin operating on the surface, which was outbound.

The Redfin, outbound, while going down Rebellion Reach encountered dense fog, visibility around 150 feet at a point between Buoy No. 1 and Buoy No. 2. The Redfin reduced speed, commenced blowing fog signals, and took steps visually to locate Buoy 25, the next buoy down. The Pilot visually sighted this buoy about 100-150 feet off, the limit of visibility, and changed course for the next leg, the Mount Pleasant Reach. He came out of the fog about halfway between Buoy 25 and Buoy 23. When abeam, i. e., abreast of, Buoy 23 he passed the inbound Penobscot. At that time he could visually see the Penobscot and behind her, down at the jetties, he could visually see the Wuerttemberg. He passed the Wuerttemberg just before he turned into the Fort Sumter Range at Buoy 20. He did not see the Swerve at any time.

The Navy tug Penobscot, 143 feet long, 30 feet beam, 16 feet draft, with operating radar on, was inbound. The Penobscot came close to only one other vessel, the outbound Redfin. The Commanding Officer of the Penobscot remembered a slight morning haze but had good visibility until he was up on the Mount Pleasant Range, (also called the Mount Pleasant Reach). He reduced speed. His engine room logged this at 0613. His time is checked at noon daily with the radio time signal. He commenced sounding fog signals. His bridge book logged this at 0615. He received a report from his radar of a ship outbound and sighted her visually about 45 degrees on the port bow, about 100 to 200 feet away. The outbound Redfin was the only ship he was concerned with and to his recollection, the only one he saw. At this time he was sounding fog signals, but did not recall if he heard any from the Redfin. Because of the fog he had no way of knowing his exact position. The Penobscot was in the fog from that time until she anchored at 0629 and blew fog signals until she dropped anchor. She had no trouble with tide or current.

4. All of the events involved took place between Buoy 20, which marks the intersection of the Fort Sumter Range or Reach with the Mount Pleasant Range or Reach, and Buoy 25 which is off Fort Sumter and marks the place where the Mount Pleasant Range or Reach ends in a Y with the right fork becoming Rebellion Reach and the left fork becoming South Channel.

In this area there is a Buoy No. 21 on the west side opposite Buoy No. 20 at the place where the Fort Sumter Range meets the Mount Pleasant Range. There is next, upbound toward the harbor, on the west side, Buoy No. 23, which has no companion on the other side of the channel. In back of and to the west of Buoy No. 23 is the front light of the Fort Sumter Range.

5. The Swerve departed the old Mine piers on the Ashley river in clear weather and her navigating officer could see the TV tower by the Cooper River Bridge and the after range on Fort Sumter. As she proceeded down South Channel, the bearing takers reported that they were not able to see the navigation marks, and the captain could no longer see Sullivans Island. This was logged at 0611. She reduced speed to 9 knots, then to 4 knots at 0611. She was then between Buoy 27 and Buoy 25 in South Channel.

The radar navigation team was directed to go into operation. The bow telephone talker whose regular station was at the bow capstan moved forward next to the bow lookout on the very bow. A top lookout was stationed on the highest part of the ship, the search light platform 30-40 feet above the water. Both the bow and the top lookouts had binoculars.

The radarman asked the deck to get him a visual bearing to Buoy 27 which he could check with his radar and UOL. This position was obtained. He then noted the traffic ahead (the Redfin-Penobscot passing). He began continually to feed the information to the captain. After the inbound and outbound contacts (the Redfin-Penobscot) had passed each other the other side of Buoy 27, he watched them until that situation cleared up then reported to the bridge that his course was good to the end of the channel. The bridge asked for a course to steer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bynum v. Schiro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • July 1, 1963
    ......Civ. A. No. 12439. United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division. July 1, ......
  • Slobodna Plovidba v. King
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • June 20, 1988
    ...for a collision if it fails to use effectively its radar to detect another ship in its course. See e.g., United States v. M/V Wuerttemberg, 219 F.Supp. 211, 220 (E.D.S.C.1963), aff'd 330 F.2d 498, 503 (4th In the instant case, the Coast Guard Report, as well as the depositions of Captain Se......

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