Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Southern Pacific Co. v. Haglund
277 U.S. 304
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1928-05-21
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Sanford delivered the opinion of tie Court. These two suits in admiralty, which were brought in. the federal court for northern California, arose out of a collision between the ferryboat Thoroughfare and the steamship Enterprise in charge of the tug Relief, in the channel of San Antonio Creek, known as the Oakland Estuary, which resulted in damages to the Thoroughfare and the Enterprise, and the killing of Ernest Haglund, a workman on the Enterprise. In No. 472 the administratrix of Haglund’s estate libelled the Southern-Pacific Co., the owner of the Thoroughfare, and the Rolph Navigation & Coal Co.,-the owner of the Relief, for the damages arising from his death. In No. 473 the Moore Shipbuild-. ing Co. libelled the Thoroughfare for the damages to the 'Enterprise; and the Southern Pacific Co., as claimant of the Thoroughfare, brought in as third party respondents the Enterprise, the Relief and the Rolph Navigation & Coal Co., to answer for the damages, to the Thoroughfare, 1 The suits were tried on the same evidence as to the responsibility for the -collision, and were consolidated for hearing in life Circuit Court of Appeals.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Southern Pacific Co. v. Haglund. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 11 opinions
SOUTHERN PACIFICv. HAGLUND,277 U.S. 304(1928)
48 S.Ct. 510
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANYv. HAGLUND, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL.
SAMEv. MOORE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Nos. 472, 473.
Submitted April 13, 1928.
Decided May 21, 1928.
CERTIORARI,275 U.S. 517, to decrees of the Circuit Court of
Appeals, affirming two decrees in admiralty against the
petitioner for damages caused in a collision by its ferryboat.
The whistle acceptance of a tendered passing signal is a positive assertion that no danger exists which is known to the accepting vessel and concealed from the vessel signalling for the maneuver. If there is such a danger, the vessel knowing it owes a positive duty to the asking vessel to blow the danger signal. A vessel knowing of such concealed danger and accepting a passing signal and failing to blow the danger signal, is in fault and is responsible for a collision "caused" by the hidden danger.
The tendering vessel nay rely on the assurances of the accepting vessel and is not at fault for damages arising from proceeding as if the hidden danger were not there.
The contrary rule, laid down by the Ninth Circuit in this case is opposed to the rule as recognized in the Second Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits and all other cases. It is not the law and is a menace to life and property at sea.The American,92 U.S. 432;The Genevieve, 95 F. 859;The F.W. Wheeler, 78 F. 824;The Edna V. Crew, 202 F. 1021;The Lowell M. Palmer, 142 F. 937;Atlas Trans. Co. v.Lee Line, 235 F. 492, on rehearing, 238 F. 349;The Richmond, 275 F. 970;TheAlabama, 114 F. 214;Santa Maria, 227 F. 149;Werdenfels, 150 F. 400;The Luther C. Ward, 149 F. 787.Page 306
TheRelief, and tow, should be held in sole fault, for had the circumstances been as safe as they properly seemed to theThoroughfare, and as theRelief'sacceptance told her they were, there was nothing which could possibly have caused a collision. TheThoroughfarewould have passed safely on through the deep, straight and unobstructed channel, without hurt to anyone.
TheThoroughfarewasin extremiswhen at the stern of theEnterprise. Her sudden turn to avoid her danger was her only salvation, the only thing she could do. The turn was, therefore, the proximate result of the antecedent invitation by theReliefto enter the trap, from which theThoroughfarestruggled to escape.
The burden of proof is on each vessel to establish fault on the part of the other.The Victory,168 U.S. 410.
Where fault on the part of one vessel is established by uncontradicted testimony, and such fault is, of itself, sufficient to account for the disaster, it is not enough for such vessel to raise a doubt with regard to the management of the other vessel.The City of New York,147 U.S. 72.
It is elemental that there should be a lookout on a tow which obscures the vision of a tug from approaching vessels.Nevadav.Quick,106 U.S. 164;Edward G. Murray, 234 F. 61;JamesA. Lawrence, 117 F. 228;Gladiator, 132 F. 876;Arthur M.Palmer, 115 F. 420.
Every doubt as to the performance of the duty, and the effect of non-performance, should be resolved against the vessel sought to be inculpated until she vindicates herself by testimony conclusive to the contrary.The Ariadne, 13 Wall. 475;TheAnna, 201 F. 58.
The mere finding that theThoroughfare'sact is the proximate cause does not make it the sole cause and does not absolve the court from considering whether the absence of a lookout was not a contributing cause.The International, 143 F. 468.Page 307Mr. Ira S. Lillick, with whomMr. Hunt C. Hill wason the briefs, submitted for the respondents, Moore Shipbuilding Company and Hildur Haglund, Administratrix.Mr. J.F. Sullivan, with whomMessrs. Edward I. BarryandTheodore J. Rochewere on the brief, submitted for the respondent, Rolph Navigation Coal Company.
The suits were tried on the same evidence as to the responsibility for the collision, and were consolidated for hearing in the Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court found that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of theThoroughfare, without fault on the part of theReliefor theEnterprise, and entered decrees againstPage 308the Southern Pacific Co. for the damages to theEnterpriseand the death of Haglund. These decrees were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.19 F.2d 878.
The channel of the Estuary, the great artery of commerce between San Francisco and Oakland, is 500 feet wide. The collision occurred about noon, on a clear day. TheEnterprise, a steam freighter 320 feet long, which was undergoing repairs at the yard of the Moore Shipbuilding Co. on the north bank of the Estuary, was let down stern foremost on a marine railway into the waters of the Estuary, and lay at right angles across the channel. She was without power, had no lookout, and had been placed by the Shipbuilding Company in charge of theReliefto be berthed at a nearby wharf on the Company's plant.2TheThoroughfare, a steam ferryboat, was then approaching at her full speed of 13 miles an hour on an easterly course through the Estuary. When about 2,900 feet away she sounded a single blast of her whistle. This was not answered by theRelief, which was then engaged in stopping the sternway of theEnterprisetowards the south side of the channel. When theThoroughfarehad approached within about 1,000 feet of theEnterprise, theReliefhad arrested the movement of theEnterpriseand was holding her dead in the water, with her stern about 100 feet from the south edge of the channel, leaving an ample opening for the passage of theThoroughfare. At this distance theThoroughfareagain sounded a single blast of her whistle, indicating an intention to direct her course to starboard and pass in the rear of theEnterprise. This was accepted by theReliefby a like single blast. At this time the master of theReliefwas aware of the presence at a considerable distance on the other side ofPage 309theEnterpriseof the tugUnion3which, with a tow, was approaching on a westerly course near the south edge of the channel. The master of theThoroughfare, whose view was then intercepted by theEnterprise, was not aware of the presence of theUnion. After theReliefgave her answering signal theThoroughfarecontinued to advance at full speed, for about 1,000 feet, heading for the 100 foot opening between the stern of theEnterpriseand the edge of the channel, and not knowing what vessels might be encountered on the other side. Meanwhile theEnterpriseremained at rest without any change in position. Just as theThoroughfarewas about to pass, she saw theUnionapproaching on the other side and blew two whistles to indicate her intention of passing on the starboard side of theUnionafter she got clear of theEnterprise. This was accepted by two blasts from theUnion. But before clearing theEnterprisetheThoroughfaresuddenly changed her course to port, and struck theEnterprise. There was no occasion for this change to port. TheThoroughfarewas not then in peril; theUnionwas about 900 feet away and had already slowed down; and theThoroughfarewould have had ample time and space after clearing theEnterprisein which to go to port and pass on the starboard side of theUnionin accordance with the previous exchange of signals. And theThoroughfarecould herself have stopped within 300 feet.
We agree with the view of both the lower courts that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of theThoroughfare, which not only approached the passageway in the rear of theEnterpriseat full speed, without knowing whether she would encounter any vessel on the other side, but needlessly commenced the execution of the passing movement with theUnionbefore she had cleared thePage 310Enterprise;and that there was no contributing fault on the part of theReliefor theEnterprise.
TheReliefwas not at fault in accepting the passing signal of theThoroughfare. This was merely an assent to the proposed passage in the rear of theEnterprise, expressing an understanding of what theThoroughfareproposed to do and an agreement not to endanger or thwart it by permitting an interfering change in the position of theEnterprise. SeeAtlas Transp. Co. v.Lee Line Steamers(C.C.A.), 235 F. 492, 495. And theRelief, being in a position to fully carry out its agreement, was under no obligation to decline the passing signal because of the approach of theUnionon the other side and to sound instead a warning signal. There was nothing in the situation to indicate that the approach of theUnionwould prevent theThoroughfarefrom passing safely, if, as theReliefhad the right to assume, it were navigated with due care. SeeAtlas Transp. Co. v.Lee Line Steamers(C.C.A.), 238 F. 349, on petition for rehearing. The doctrine ofTheF.W. Wheeler(C.C.A.), 78 F. 824, that a moving tug is in fault in accepting, without warning, a passing signal when she knows that the passage is obstructed by her grounded tow whose movement she cannot control, has no application here.
Nor was theEnterpriseat fault in not having a lookout. The rule stated inThe Ariadne, 13 Wall. 475, 478, as to the responsibility of a moving vessel for the failure of her lookout to discover an approaching vessel in time to avoid a collision, does not apply to a vessel in the position of theEnterprise, which was at rest, without power; and the absence of a lookout upon her did not in any manner contribute to the collision.Decrees affirmed.Page 311