HEl>EN HASBROUOX.l BOfER V.
PAREIS V. THE HELEN HASBROUOX.
(District Oourt, E. D. N(J/J) York. July 23, 1886.)
COLLI8ION-BcuoONER AND TuG-OVERTAKING VESSEL-LIABILITY.
Where a collision occurred in the North riv,er between a schooner and a tug, whereby the latter was rundown by the sailing vessel, it was held, on the evidence, that the schooner was the overtaking vessel, should therefore have avoided the tug, and was in fault for the collision.
Owen Gray, for Soper and the Helen Hasbrouck. Alexander Ash, for Pareis. '
BENEDIOT,;roc The course of the schooner is proved to have been directly up the North river, or one point to the eastward of the oourse of the river. The differenoe of one point wonldnot be important. ,Tije upon the cQufBe' efthe tug; for if the course' the tug was the same as that of the schooner, or within one point of the course of the schooner, the schooner, which broke ground below the tug, was the following vessel, and bound to avoid the tug. "If': otlthe other hand, the tug's course was crossing that of the scb'oOJ:i'6r,:'the obligation to avoid the schooner rested upoD'the tug, and she' was in fault for having done so. Upon this quesHon my opinion is 'With the The testimony from the schooner as to the-coUrse of the tug istoQ for they make the tug heading towatds Ferry, Jersey City. Bound, as the tug was, for Sixty-eighth street, , in New York, it seems to me incredible that she should have' been sailing towards Central Ferry, Jersey City. Her natural course, would be the cbutse given bythoEie in charge of her, viz., up -the'river. Upon that Murse it is evident that, with a prdper Iookoo,t,wll;ichshe says she had, the approach of the schooner from astern might' not have been observed. Upon that course she might havebeeri struck as she was struck. Upon the course given her by those, 'on, the a blow the schooner delivered her, theschooJ,wr bringing up on the tug's, fantail, and her martingale pilot-hoUBe door, does not appear to me p o s s i b l e . ' .... The evidence from the respective ves,Sela cannot be. of some of the witnesses must. therefore of the case, the distance of the tug, and the b,low, that was delivered, lead me to. disregard the te,stimony, schooner that the tug. was seen by them. upQn a course
by R. Do. Wyl1ys Benedict, Esqs.,
New York bar.
Ferry, and to adopt the testimony of those witnesses who say that the tug was going up the rivElr, and was run over by the schooner overtaking her from below. The libelant, John J. Pareis, must therefore recover for the loss of his tug, and the libel of Soper for the injury to the schooner must be dismissed.
(District Court, '8.
December 27, 1886.)
NBGLIGENCE-NEGLECT OF THOSE IN CHARGB OF INFANT-IMPROPER PLACELIABILITY. OF VESSEL--RUDDERCHA,INS.
Llbelarit's ward, an infant three years old. was injUred' on 'board of the steam-ship Burgundia, by the rudder -chain, which ran in an open box on the main ,deck. Previous to the acoiden!'o the infant's nurse had left him to himself, and, when hurt, he was in apart of the ship where he had no right t<» be. Held, that the fault rested with those who had chargeot the child,and that the vessel was not liable for the injury.
In Admiralty· .A. 13.·. Stelpart,' for libelant. Benedict, Taft Benedict, for claimants.
BROWN, J. The libelant's ward, Louis Cartarsso, a child 01 three years old, while on a voyage to this port from Naples, on the second day out, had its fingers crushed in putting them into the trough that carries the rudder chain. across one of the pulleys upon the main deck. The child, being uneasy, had been set down by the nurse a few minu;tes before, and ran aft of the place where the steerage passengers were allowed; and, as the evidence shows, a few minutes afterwards its screams were the first notice tnatthe nurse had that, it was meddling with the chain. The wooden groove or box was such as is usual upon nearly all steam-ships, and ,no customary precaution was neglected. It is necessary that such chainsshall be subject to constant and immediate inspectioll. It is plain that the child was where it had' no business to be, and was improperly left to run into what dangers it might find. There is no law that requires a ship to prevent the possibility of accidents to infants incapable Of takingcare who are suffered by those in charge of them to roam ship. Thebo::x: provided in this instance was a reasonis ably sufficient precaution against liability to accident, and the wholly on tb'6se in charge of the child. . ., :Thelibel must be dismissed. .
lReported by EdwardG. Banedict, Esq., of the New York bar.