Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Company
| Decision Date | 14 January 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,262 - (102) |
| Citation | 124 N.W. 221,109 Minn. 456 |
| Parties | R. C. VINCENT and Another v. LAKE ERIE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $1,200 for damage to plaintiffs' wharf, caused by defendant negligently keeping its vessel tied to it. The defendant in its answer alleged that a portion of the cargo was consigned to plaintiffs' dock and on November 27, 1905, its vessel was placed alongside at the place and in the manner designated by plaintiffs and the discharge of cargo continued until ten o'clock that night, that by the time the discharge of cargo was completed the wind had attained so great a velocity the master and crew were powerless to move the vessel. The case was tried before Ensign, J., who denied the defendant's motion to direct a verdict in its favor and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $500. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Vessel Owner Liable to Dock Owner.
Where under stress of weather, a master, for the purpose of preserving his vessel, maintains her moorings to a dock after the full discharge of the vessel's cargo, and the dock is damaged by the striking and pounding of the vessel, the dock owner may recover from the shipowner for the injury sustained, although prudent seamanship required the master to follow the course pursued.
H. R. Spencer, for appellant.
It is the duty of the owner of the wharf to make suitable preparations for the safety of those who moor their boats along its side. When the public are invited to the wharf of defendant and charged for the security offered them, they have a right to expect and to depend upon the dock owner for such appliances for securing and holding their boats as are sufficient for that purpose. Willey v. Allegheny City, 118 Pa. St. 490; The Stroma, 50 F. 557; The Francisco v. The Waterloo, 79 F. 113, affirmed 100 F. 332; Pittsburgh v. Grier, 22 Pa. St. 54; Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Walker, 139 F. 855.
A stricter rule of liability prevails where the wharfinger assumes control of the location of the vessel. In such cases it is his duty to select a safe berth, and he will be liable for not doing so. Leary v. Woodruff, 4 Hun, 99.
The evidence establishes the fact that the damage done the dock was by the act of God. That it was an inevitable accident. Jones v. Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co., 91 Minn. 229; The Nicholson and The Adams, 28 F. 889.
Alford & Hunt, for respondents.
The steamship Reynolds, owned by the defendant, was for the purpose of discharging her cargo on November 27, 1905, moored to plaintiffs' dock in Duluth. While the unloading of the boat was taking place a storm from the northeast developed, which at about ten o'clock p.m., when the unloading was completed, had so grown in violence that the wind was then moving at fifty miles per hour and continued to increase during the night. There is some evidence that one, and perhaps two, boats were able to enter the harbor that night, but it is plain that navigation was practically suspended from the hour mentioned until the morning of the twenty ninth, when the storm abated, and during that time no master would have been justified in attempting to navigate his vessel, if he could avoid doing so. After the discharge of the cargo the Reynolds signaled for a tug to tow her from the dock, but none could be obtained because of the severity of the storm. If the lines holding the ship to the dock had been cast off, she would doubtless have drifted away; but, instead, the lines were kept fast, and as soon as one parted or chafed it was replaced, sometimes with a larger one. The vessel lay upon the outside of the dock, her bow to the east, the wind and waves striking her starboard quarter with such force that she was constantly being lifted and thrown against the dock, resulting in its damage, as found by the jury, to the amount of $500.
We are satisfied that the character of the storm was such that it would have been highly imprudent for the master of the Reynolds to have attempted to leave the dock or to have permitted his vessel to drift away from it. One witness testified upon the trial that the vessel could have been warped into a slip, and that, if the attempt to bring the ship into the slip had failed, the worst that could have happened would be that the vessel would have been blown ashore upon a soft and muddy bank. The witness was not present in Duluth at the time of the storm, and, while he may have been right in his conclusions, those in charge of the dock and the vessel at the time of the storm were not required to use the highest human intelligence, nor were they required to resort to every possible experiment which could be suggested for the preservation of their property. Nothing more was demanded of them than ordinary prudence and care, and the record in this case fully sustains the contention of the appellant that, in holding the vessel fast to the dock, those in charge of her exercised good judgment and prudent seamanship.
It is claimed by the respondent that it was negligence to moor the boat at an exposed part of the wharf, and to continue in that position after it became apparent that the storm was to be more than usually severe. We do not agree with this position. The part of the wharf where the vessel was moored appears to have been commonly used for that purpose. It was situated within the harbor at Duluth, and must, we think, be considered a proper and safe place,...
To continue reading
Request your trial