Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In the employment of tugs for steamers entering or moving about in harbors, it is a common custom for the steamer to move by the use of her own motive power, using the tug merely to indicate the channel and to assist in making turns in narrow places, in entering docks and similar maneuvers. The liability of the tug in these situations depends wholly upon the question of its direct contribution to the injury. If the damages inflicted are caused by the movements of the vessel, independent of the tug, in a situation where it is proceeding under its own motive power, although following the lead of the tug, it is responsible; but if the negligent conduct of the tug contributes to or produces the injury, the tug is liable in whole or in part, as its negligence appears, for the injury done.

Sec. 126. Negligent towing. Where a tug, in the usual course of its business, undertakes to tow a vessel, there is an implied contract that it is seaworthy, equipped with the usual and proper appliances for the undertaking it is entering upon, that it is well officered and manned, with a crew having the necessary skill and experience to perform the duties required of them in a seaman-like manner, and that they are sufficiently well acquainted with the waters to be traversed to conduct the tow in safety to its place of destination; and where collision ensues by reason of the lack of these essential qualifications, the tug and its owners are responsible.1

The Allie, 24 Fed. R. 745, 749; The W. E. Gladwish, 17 Blatch. 77; The Butler, 62 Fed. R. 612; The Emperor, 61 Fed. R. 990; Hadden v. The J. H. Rutter, 35 Fed. R. 365; The Nettie, 35 Fed. R. 615; The Jonty Jenks, 54 Fed. R. 1021; The Nicholson, 28 Fed. R. 889; The W. H. Beaman, 45 Fed. R. 125.

Where a tug undertook to tow out from a dock a burning ferryboat by a hempen hawser, instead

of using a chain or metal line, which was at hand, the tow-line burning off, the vessel drifted against a schooner at anchor in a proper place, and set it afire. Held, that the tug was negligent in attempting to tow by a line that could be destroyed by fire, where it could have secured a metal one, and was liable for the damages sustained. The Clarita, 23 Wall. 1.

It is negligence and a breach of the implied contract of towage for a tug of insufficient power to attempt to tow a vessel, when in a situation where injury is liable to be received or inflicted, when its power is insufficient to meet the requirements usually incident to such an undertaking. It must be capable of handling its tow with promptness and safety under the ordinary difficulties of navigation.' It must not only have sufficient power to manage its tow in fair weather, but must have sufficient power to meet the emergencies of such tempestuous weather as may reasonably be expected and it is liable to incur in the ordinary course of navigation. As before stated, the tug impliedly contracts that it is familiar with the channel through which it is to proceed; and where it negligently takes a course whereby it is grounded or strikes an obstruction, the presence of which is well known or may reasonably be expected, the tow may recover. While a tug is not bound for the absolute safety of a tow, and is not to be regarded as an insurer of its safety, it is bound to know such facts in connection with the usual course of navigation as render it competent to perform the duties for which tugs are usually engaged, such as the depth of water in a channel, obstructions, the state of the tides and currents, and any other conditions essential to the safe performance of its undertaking.3

It is the duty of a tug to conduct its tow through channels that are safe; and where it unnecessarily adopts a dangerous course, when a safe one is at hand, it is liable for running the unnecessary risk.1

1 The Howard Carroll, 41 Fed. R. 159; Wilson v. Sibley, 36 Fed. R. 379.

2 The Sally McDevitt, 24 Fed. R. 302; 29 Fed. R. 798; The Minnie, 31 Fed. R. 301; The Mary N. Hogan, 35 Fed. R. 554; Dubois v. Nichols, 53 Fed. R. 665; Pettie v. Boston Tow-boat Co., 49 Fed. R. 464; The Taurus, 63 Fed. R. 137; The Zanove,

1 Brown, 110; The Robert H. Burnette, 30 Fed. R. 214.

3 The T. J. Schuyler v. The Isaac H. Tillyer, 41 Fed. R. 477.

4 The George A. Dentz, 12 Fed. R. 575; The Mascotte, 48 Fed. R. 917.

Failure of the master of a tug to be present at a time when special skill and care are required, such as he alone can afford, is sufficient

In the navigation of harbors and crowded channels a tug should at all times have its tow under such control that it can stop it, or alter its movements, within such distance as it is liable to meet other vessels. The requirements in crowded situations are more strict than when navigating less frequented waters.'

Sec. 127. Promoting dangerous situation.- A tug having the power of directing its movements at will is bound to pursue a safe and consistent course and not to lead its tow into an unnecessarily exposed or hazardous situation, and is liable for failure to take such timely means to avoid the same as ordinary prudence requires. It is no defense that it used all reasonable means to avoid danger after having brought its tow into the dangerous situation. It is the duty of a tug having a tow whose condition is such that it can with difficulty be handled, before leading it into a situation where it may injure others by reason of its unmanage

to charge the vessel with damages for loss of the tow. Bouker v. Smith, 40 Fed. R. 839.

A steam-barge, having in tow three schooners, allowed herself to approach so near a lee shore that in endeavoring to turn about the rear vessel was stranded. The steamer was held at fault for not keeping out in the lake further. The Elfinmere, 39 Fed. R. 909.

suppose that the tow is loaded deeper than usual, and by reason of the unusual draft it grounds, no liability arises on the part of the tug, it being the duty of the tow to give information of its increased draft. The Harry and Fred, 55 Fed. R. 426.

2 The Osceola, 33 Fed. R. 719; The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 167; 18 Fed. R. 828; Giovanna v. The City of

1 The American Eagle, 29 Fed. R. Philadelphia, 59 Fed. R. 303; The 302.

Where a tug undertook to tow a boat over a bar, the conditions of which were unknown to the tow, it was held that the tug was bound to ascertain the draft and not to attempt to cross it if the water were insufficient; but that where a tow is taken in the course of long-continued dealing, and the master of the tug has no reason to

David Morris, 1 Brown, 273.

Where a tug proceeding with a tow permitted it to get into such a position that unusual strain was brought on its hawser, causing it to break, precipitating a collision between the tow and another vessel, the tug was held liable for ensuing damages. The Alpha, 27 Fed. R. 759; The City of Philadelphia v. Gavagnin, 62 Fed. R. 617.

ability, to see that it is rendered as safe as the nature of the tow will permit; and if of such a character that its dangerous features cannot be eliminated, it should not be brought into a position whereby it is liable to do injury. The degree of care required on the part of a tug must be measured by the nature and condition of its tow; the more dangerous the character of the latter, the greater is the care required of the other. A tug will be held responsible for voluntarily assuming to tow a dangerous craft, under circumstances rendered dangerous by its own lack of power to handle it."

On approaching a narrow channel or dangerous situation, it is the duty of a tug to ascertain that the channel is not obstructed, and that there is sufficient room for its tow to pass in safety; and when the approach of another is observed, at a point where it is difficult to pass, it is the duty of the one navigating against the current to stop before reaching the dangerous situation, and wait for the one descending to pass. Extraordinary precautions are required of a tug navigating a narrow channel with a tow so large as to occupy the larger portion of the channel.

1 The Nicholson, 28 Fed. R. 889. 2 The Gratitude, 31 Fed. R. 232; Hadden v. The J. H. Rutter, 35 Fed. R. 365; The Gorgus, 10 Ben. 541; The Howard Carroll, 41 Fed. R. 159.

Where a propellor towed a barge so near a vessel at anchor that collision occurred by reason of a sudden sheer of the tow, held, that the propellor was at fault. The Cement Rock, 8 Ben. 443.

3 The Osceola, 50 Fed. R. 326; The Senator D. C. Chase, 46 Fed. R. 874; The T. W. Snook, 49 Fed. R. 686; The Dasori, 47 Fed. R. 330; Miller v. The John C. Ingram, 37 Fed. R. 910; The Drew, 38 Fed. R. 858.

4 The Lucy D., 21 Fed. R. 142; The Iron Chief, 63 Fed. R. 289.

In the case of The Pennsylvania, 3 Ben. 215, a tug was held liable for stopping in a situation whereby its tow spread by the force of the current so as to obstruct the channel, whereby it was injured by a passing steamer.

In the case of The Nicholson v. The Adams, 28 Fed. R. 889, it was held to be negligence for a tug to tow a large and deeply-laden schooner up a narrow channel during the prevalence of a hard storm, with its sails unfurled, and in such a condition as to cause the vessel to become unmanageable, whereby a collision ensued.

Where a tug with a tow in a narrow channel crowded between two passing tows, when it could

A tug may be liable for starting out from a place of safety with its tow under circumstances where a reasonably careful and prudent navigator would not do so. The law does not require that a tug shall start on a voyage or trip only when there is no possibility of danger; from the nature of its occupation it is required to navigate in foul as well as fair weather, although it is not justified in starting out with a tow in the face of danger so threatening that a reasonably prudent man would not go. Tugs undertake to bring to their work of towing such prudence and nautical skill as is ordinarily required in the species of navigation in which they are engaged. And the question is the same whether it arises where the adequacy of the tug for the work required is questioned, whether it was seaworthy and properly equipped, or whether otherwise negligent. The question is always one of reasonable prudence and judgment; and there is no other final or better criterion than the judgment of practical men, schooled in the usages and requirements of the occupation in which the tug is engaged.'

have just as well have followed the one ahead, it was held guilty of negligence and liable for resulting damages. The William Orr, 54 Fed. R. 904.

1 The Allie, 24 Fed. R. 745; The Hercules, 63 Fed. R. 268; The Argus, 31 Fed. R. 481; The Flyer, 62 Fed. R. 612; The Hercules, 55 Fed. R. 120; The Vandercook and The Thomas Purcell, Jr., 65 Fed. R. 251.

A tug with two vessels in tow bound down Lake Huron was struck by a gale with heavy snow. The master, finding the water rapidly shoaling, stood out to sea. In executing this maneuver the tow line parted, and the tow went ashore. Held, that the tug was liable for bringing the tow so near to the shore. The S. S. Wilhelm, 59 Fed. R. 169.

Where a tug with two tows tandem entered the Chicago river abreast of a steamer going in the same direction, and the tug by increasing its speed brought the rear tow into such relations with the steamer that it was caused to sheer by the suction of the latter, and came into collision with another vessel, the tug was held responsible for bringing the tow into a situation where it was liable to receive or inflict injury.

Where a steamboat had in tow a canal-boat on a hawser, and the latter came into collision with a vessel by reason of the defective steering of the canal-boat, the master of the steamer being previously warned of her liability to sheer, and that it steered badly, and advised to take the boat along

« AnteriorContinuar »