Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

encroachment upon the public way. It has been held by some authorities that the projection of a vessel beyond the dock line out into the channel is negligence per se, when voluntarily or unnecessarily allowed. The weight of authority, however, appears to be, that in respect to vessels passing along near to the ends of docks and piers, such projection is not negligent, as it is the duty of such vessels to keep at a distance; but as to vessels entering the slip or departing therefrom, such projection is unlawful and negligent, where it unnecessarily impedes access to or egress from the slip by vessels lawfully attempting to do so; that vessels may rely on the entrance to their slip being open and free from obstructions to the established dock line.

1 The Canima, 32 Fed. R. 302; The Mary Powell, 36 Fed. R. 598.

The Canima, 17 Fed. R. 271; The Baltic, 2 Ben. 452; The Cornwall, 8 Ben. 212; The Avid, 3 Ben. 434; Shields v. Mayor, etc., 18 Fed. R. 748.

In the case of The Fort Lee, 31 Fed. R. 570, the court held that a vessel moored at a pier with its bowsprit extending beyond the end of the pier, in violation of local regulations, being in the usual track of vessels accustomed to enter the slip, was at fault even though the obstruction was visible and might have been avoided by the entering vessel if it had had a proper lookout.

In the case of Castle v. The South Brooklyn, 50 Fed. R. 588, a canalboat projected some thirty feet across the mouth of a slip. Its lights being obscured by the presence of a tug-boat, an approaching ferry-boat collided with it. The court held that such obstruction was negligence and that the ferryboat was not at fault. That it

might be presumed that the entrance of the slip was open and unobstructed.

In the case of The Martino Cilento, 22 Fed. R. 859, a canalboat unloading at the end of a pier had moved forward for the purpose of enabling her to reload from the afterhatch, which caused its bow to project somewhat into the adjoining slip, out of which a sailing-vessel was being moved by a tug. There being sufficient room for the vessel to pass out, and the circumstances of the situation not being such as to indicate any danger to the canal-boat, it was held not liable for collision ensuing.

In the case of The Margaret J. Sandford, 30 Fed. R. 714; 37 Fed. R. 148, a tug having in tow a car-float alongside attempted to pass along a narrow channel between the bows of two vessels projecting into the channel, one on each side. The court found the tug negligent in attempting to pass in the face of a known danger, and the vessel with which the float collided was

Sec. 102. Leaving vessel unattended. A vessel at a private dock, where the entrance of others is not permitted, is not bound to provide a constant watch for the approach of others, and is not liable for collision resulting from an unexpected entry of a vessel having no right to do so, and which might have been prevented had a watch been kept. The incoming vessel, being a trespasser, is bound to know the result of its actions before committing an unlawful act. But where a vessel is moored in a public slip where the arrival and departure of others may reasonably be expected, and where they have a right to come and go at pleasure, prudence requires a vessel moored there to keep on deck a sufficient watch to guard against the approach of others, and to be ready to afford the proper protection to itself as occasion requires.1

held guilty of carelessness in permitting its bow to project so far into the navigable channel as to impede passing navigation.

In the case of The Michigan, 52 Fed. R. 501, it was held not an unlawful act, or an obstruction to navigation, for a vessel which had passed through the St. Mary's canal to tie up to the north pier, where the canal is three hundred feet wide, at a place designated by the overseer of the canal for such purposes, and if struck by an incoming vessel the presumption is that the latter is at fault.

In the case of Fawcett v. Steam Tow-boat L. W. Morgan, 6 Fed. R. 200, some barges were moored so as to project into the navigable channel of the Ohio river and in the way of passing boats. It was held such mooring was negligent and an unlawful obstruction of the channel, and that recovery could not be maintained for damages in

flicted by a descending tow of several barges.

1 The Canima, 17 Fed. R. 271; The Burke, 4 Cliff. 582.

Where a barge was lying at a dock by night unattended, at the stern of a steamer, by whose propeller it received injuries by which it sunk, it was held that it was at fault for being alone; that while the steamer was guilty of negli gence, the barge was also negligent; that had there been any one left in charge the accident might have been avoided. The Scotia, 63 L. T.

324.

Where the owners of a vessel at anchor had omitted to keep any one on board to care for it, and collision occurred by another vessel being driven against it after having come to anchor, it was held that the owners of the vessel, in leaving it unattended, had omitted a reasonable and ordinary precaution, and that no recovery could be

Sec. 103. With vessels moored at river bank.—It is the duty of vessels navigating rivers to keep out in the stream a sufficient distance to avoid striking vessels moored to the shore, and especial watchfulness is required when navigating in the vicinity where they may reasonably be expected.1 But where river-boats are moored in exposed and injudicious situations, they are liable if moored so as to obstruct the navigable channel.2

Sec. 104. Liability of dock-owner.-Where a vessel is directed by the owner of a dock to enter a berth for the purpose of unloading, there is an implied warranty on his part that the dock is free from obstructions or dangerous agencies, and fit for the occupation of the vessel; that there is a depth of water sufficient for her to ride in safety, and that the appliances for fastening are safe and in good repair. While the dock-owner is not to be considered as an insurer of the safety of a vessel moored at his dock, he is required to have it in such a state of repair as to be reasonably safe for the ordinary use of vessels permitted to use it.3

had for damage to the vessel Clapp water swung around and collided v. Young, 1 Spr. 40.

A vessel moored at a dock well lighted by electricity was held not at fault for being left alone, and a tug colliding with it was held to be solely at fault. The Hornet (Div. Ct.),P. 361.

In the case of Humphrey v. Charles Warner Co., 45 Fed. R. 270, a heavily-loaded schooner, while being towed to her dock, grounded in a situation where she would be liable to swing against a steamer, moored at a dock near by, unless prevented by proper stay-lines. The schooner's master, being aware that no watch was kept on the steamer, kept no watch on the

grounded vessel, which on a rise of

with the steamer. The court held that inasmuch as the master of the schooner knew that no watch was kept on the steamer, and knowing the danger of his situation, it was negligence on his part to leave his vessel without a watch, and was not excusable by failure of the steamer to notify him of impending danger.

The Bella Donna, 1 Newb. 510. 2 The L. W. Morgan, 6 Fed. R. 200.

3 Vantine v. The Lake, 2 Wall. Jr. 52; The John Berkman, 6 Fed. R. 535; Christian v. Van Tassel, 12 Fed. R. 884; Leonard v. Decker, 22 Fed. R. 741.

Sec. 105. Vessels breaking from moorings.- Where collision occurs by a vessel breaking from its moorings by reason of negligent or defective fastenings, the loss rests upon the one guilty of the neglect; but when the injury is caused by the breaking of fastenings sufficient for all ordinary emergencies, the fact of unusual conditions arising, whereby the vessel is forced from its moorings, does not impose upon it the additional burden of liability for the damage resulting to others. This must be borne by the party upon which it falls, and is to be attributed to inevitable accident- one of the perils of the sea to which vessels are at all times subject, and which is one of the risks they voluntarily assume.' In making fast to docks and piers, vessels are required to provide only against ordinary contingencies such as may reasonably be anticipated. They are not required to make fast by lines so numerous or so strong as to resist unusual forces not reasonably to be expected. The burden of proof, however, is upon the vessel so breaking from its moorings to show that ordinary care and caution were taken in securing its fastenings, and that the place of mooring was not unlawful, and that the damages incurred were the result of inevitable accident, and not from negligence on its part.3

A vessel moored in an unlawful place, or secured to defective fastenings, assumes the risk attending its unlawful conduct. It is the duty of a vessel mooring to a dock to inspect the appliances provided for attaching its lines, so far as open defects are concerned; and it should avoid mooring to a post or other device that is openly defective and insecure. It is not liable for damages arising from the break

1 Arbo v. Brown, 9 Fed. R. 318; Jerome v. Floating Dock, 3 Hughes, 508; The Christopher Columbus, 8 Ben. 239; Bodin v. The Thule, 3 Woods, 670.

2 Morrisey v. The Nora Costello,

46 Fed. R. 869; Neel v. Blythe, 42 Fed. R. 457.

3 The Louisiana, 3 Wall. 164; The John Tucker, 5 Ben. 366; The Fremont, 3 Saw. 571.

4 The Johannas, 10 Blatch. 478.

ing of defective dock equipments that are latent and not observable by ordinary prudence on examination.1

A vessel lawfully mooring to a dock has a right to presume that it is in a safe condition of repair, and that the appliances for mooring are ordinarily safe and sufficient, except as the contrary is open and observable. It is not sufficient that the appliances are sufficient for fair weather; they must be sufficient to withstand tempestuous weather as well.

Where a vessel lawfully moored to a dock is obliged to move its position to avoid collision arising from the negligence of another, and in doing so sustains an injury, the damages resulting are deemed attributable to the misconduct of the vessel necessitating the maneuver; but where the damages received from such shifting are not the result of defective mooring or subsequent negligence on the part of the other, it is to be attributed to the ordinary perils of the sea. A vessel in mooring is bound to the exercise of reasonable judgment and skill in making its attachments, in the absence of which it can recover but partial damages, even though the other be primarily at fault."

Where a

Sec. 106. Collisions with vessels at anchor. vessel is at anchor in a proper place, and is observant of the precautions required by law, it is not liable for damages sustained by a vessel in motion colliding with it; but where it anchors in an unlawful situation, or fails to observe the

The Mary L. Cushing, 60 Fed. R. 110.

2 The Fremont, 3 Saw. 571; The Wier v. Padre, 29 Fed. R. 335.

3 The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 196; The Austria, 9 Fed. R. 916.

It was held to be negligence for the owners of a vessel to moor it, using only a single seven-eighths inch chain, in a high and increasing wind. The Lotty, Olc. Adm.

Where three loaded scows broke loose from their fastenings and collided with a vessel at anchor, the scows having been so disposed that the head-lines of one of the scows was caused to bear the strain of all three and of a tug, without other additional fastenings, it was held that the tug placing them in the situation was solely liable. The P. J. Nevins, 67 Fed. R. 158.

« AnteriorContinuar »