Hendry v. Ocean Steamship Co. · 171

Court

District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts

Decided

Jun 12, 1896

Judge

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge

Posture

Decree entered by district court finding mutual fault and awarding half damages with recoupment

Libelantss (4)

Abram W. Hendry et al., owners, master, and crew of the schooner Golden Rule

Eugene P. Carver, Edward E. Blodgett

Respondents (2)

Ocean Steamship Company, claimant of the steamer Chattahoochee

Chas. T. Russell

Overview

The decree of the district court is modified with reference to distribution between owners/master and mate/crew of the Golden Rule, and with this exception is affirmed without interest. The appellee is adjudged its costs in this court, and the case is remanded to the district court for proceedings in accordance with this order.

Case summary

This admiralty case involves a collision in fog south of Nantucket Shoals on July 20, 1894, between the US steamer Chattahoochee and the British schooner Golden Rule. The schooner was sunk and totally lost with its cargo of sugar and molasses. The district court found mutual fault: both vessels were proceeding at excessive speed in fog. The steamer did not appeal its fault finding. The schooner appealed, challenging its fault finding, the equal division of damages, and the application of the Harter Act. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the schooner's fault, holding it was making 5-6 knots with practically all sail set in fog, which was excessive under navigation rules. The court rejected apportionment of damages by degree of fault, applied the general admiralty rule of equal division, and held the Harter Act does not govern collision claims between vessels. The court modified the decree sua sponte to protect the seamen (mate and crew), exonerating their awards from recoupment and giving them priority over owners and master.

Abstract

In this admiralty collision case during fog, both vessels were found at fault for excessive speed, leading to the sinking of one schooner and its cargo. The appellate court affirmed the schooner's fault, rejected proportional damage apportionment in favor of equal division under general admiralty rules, and held the Harter Act inapplicable to inter-vessel collision claims. The decree was modified to prioritize and protect awards to the schooner's mate and crew over owners and master, with the case remanded for further proceedings.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionPUTNAM, Circuit Judgejoined by COLT, WEBB

Schooner at fault for excessive speed in fog
Presumption rule inapplicable
Equal division of damages applies, not apportionment
Harter Act does not govern collision claims
Seamen's awards protected from recoupment

Jurisdiction

not challenged

Subject matter

Admiralty jurisdiction over collision at sea

Jurisdictional facts

Collision occurred south of Nantucket Shoals in coast waters
Vessels were enrolled vessels of the United States and British registry

Procedural posture

Posture at trial

Decree entered by district court finding mutual fault and awarding half damages with recoupment

Posture on appeal

Direct appeal from district court decree

Preserved issues

Fault of schooner for excessive speed in fog
Application of Harter Act
Division of damages and recoupment
Priority of seamen's awards

Subsequent history

Petition for rehearing

not filed

Legal categories

Business

Case record

Full case name

THE CHATTAHOOCHEE. HENDRY et al. v. OCEAN STEAMSHIP CO.

Docket number

No. 171

Court

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Trial court

District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts

Decided

Jun 12, 1896

Opinion author

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge

Opinion type

published

Precedential status

precedential

Judges on panel

COLTPUTNAMWEBB

Issues & holdings

Issues raised

affirmed

modified

Holdings

Whether the schooner Golden Rule was at fault for excessive speed in fog

affirmed

Standard of review

Clearly erroneous

Disposition rationale

Schooner was making 5-6 knots with practically all sail set in fog, which was excessive under navigation rules

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Whether the presumption rule (when one vessel clearly at fault) applies

affirmed

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Rule has no application where fault on both sides is determinable from ascertainable facts

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Whether damages can be apportioned by degree of fault rather than divided equally

affirmed

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Apportionment inapplicable where fault of each vessel is same character (excessive speed in fog)

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Whether Harter Act applies to foreign vessels and prevents recoupment of cargo damages

affirmed

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Harter Act does not apply to collision claims between vessels; general admiralty rule of division of damages governs

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Whether decree properly prioritized awards to seamen

modified

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Court modified decree sua sponte to exonerate mate and crew from recoupment, giving priority to their awards

Preservation

Issue not preserved

Holdings of the court

Fault of schooner for excessive speed

Schooner was at fault for proceeding at 5-6 knots with practically all sail set in fog

Navigation rules require moderate speed in fog; current decisions condemn sailing vessels proceeding at full speed in fog; schooner could have shortened sail while maintaining steerage way

unanimousbinding precedent

Application of presumption rule

Presumption rule when one vessel clearly at fault does not apply

Rule applies only when fault is clear from uncontradicted testimony; here fault on both sides is determinable from ascertainable facts

unanimousbinding precedent

Apportionment of damages by degree of fault

Equal division of damages applies, not apportionment

Where fault is same character (excessive speed in fog), admiralty's rusticum judicium requires equal division; The Victory if construed otherwise would not control

unanimousbinding precedent

Application of Harter Act to collision claims

Harter Act does not apply to prevent recoupment of cargo damages in mutual fault collision

Harter Act governs bill of lading/contract of carriage relations, not collision claims between vessels; The North Star and The Manitoba establish general admiralty rule of division of damages applies

unanimousbinding precedent

Priority of seamen's awards

Decree modified to exonerate mate and crew from recoupment, giving priority to their awards

Seamen are wards of admiralty court; mate and crew not responsible for navigation fault; court acts sua sponte to protect them

unanimousbinding precedent

Error analysis

District court erred in finding schooner at fault for excessive speed — evidentiary · no error found
District court erred in applying equal division of damages rather than apportionment — procedural · no error found
District court erred in allowing recoupment of cargo damages under Harter Act — procedural · no error found

Statutory interpretation

Statute

International rules of navigation (Rev. St. § 4233)

Question

What constitutes 'moderate speed' for sailing vessel in fog

Court's reading

Speed must allow vessel to keep steerage way but not full speed; 5-6 knots with all sail set in fog is excessive

Canons applied

Plain meaningPractical exigencies of safety

Statute

Harter Act (27 Stat. 445, § 3)

Question

Whether applies to foreign vessels and collision claims between vessels

Court's reading

Act governs bill of lading/contract of carriage relations, not collision claims; may not extend to foreign vessels

Canons applied

General purview limits letterHistorical intent for domestic commerce

Burden of proof

Prosecution burden

Preponderance of evidence in civil admiralty

Burden met

true

Standards of review

Findings of fact on fault and speed — clearly erroneous Court agrees with district court findings of fact
Legal interpretation of navigation rules and Harter Act — de novo Legal questions reviewed de novo

Timeline

Events

694

Days, incident to ruling

Jul 19, 1894 — Jun 12, 1896

Span

Jul 19, 1894factual eventcited in opinion

Steamer Chattahoochee left Boston, chose to go outside due to foggy weather rather than through Vineyard Sound

Estishes course taken leading to collision area

Chattahoochee Boston

Jul 20, 1894factual eventcited in opinion

Collision occurred about 4 AM between Chattahoochee and Golden Rule in fog south of Nantucket Shoals

Outcome: Golden Rule sunk and totally lost with cargo

Central factual event giving rise to litigation

Chattahoochee · Golden Rule South of Nantucket Shoals

Jul 20, 1894factual eventcited in opinion

Fog set in at least an hour before collision, was low/surface fog

Estishes weather conditions requiring moderate speed under navigation rules

Collision area

Jan 1, 1896procedural eventcited in opinion

District court entered decree finding mutual fault, awarding half damages with recoupment of half cargo value

Outcome: Decree for libelants but with recoupment

Trial court decision appealed from

District Court trial court

Jun 12, 1896appeal eventcited in opinion

Circuit Court of Appeals issued opinion affirming with modification regarding priority of seamen's awards

Outcome: Affirmed with modification

Appellate decision resolving issues

Circuit Court of Appeals appellate court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date

Jul 20, 1894

Location

South of Nantucket Shoals, coast waters resorted to by coastwise traffic

Key facts

9 facts

Collision occurred about 4 AM in fog between steamer Chattahoochee (US, Boston to Savannah) and schooner Golden Rule (British, Porto Rico to Boston)
Schooner was deeply loaded with sugar and molasses
Fog set in at least an hour before collision, was low/surface fog
Schooner saw steamer's masts 2000 feet away but hull concealed
Misunderstanding of signals: schooner sounded three blasts (wind abaft beam) but steamer heard as single blast (starboard tack)
Steamer reduced speed 4-5 mph and went to starboard
Both vessels proceeding at excessive speed in fog
Schooner making 5-6 knots with practically all sail set
Schooner sunk and totally lost with cargo

Procedural history

4 steps

Libel filed by schooner owners, master, and crew against steamer
District court found mutual fault
Decree awarded half damages to libelants but allowed steamer to recoup half cargo value
Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals

Evidence in the record

Physical

Schooner hull was white, may have aided concealment in fog
Schooner under all sail except lower half of square sail

Testimonial

Master of schooner testified he supposed he was just about out of line of ocean steamers
Master admitted schooner making between five and six knots
Other witnesses claimed more speed

Challenged

Evidence type: Testimony about schooner's speed · Challenge basis: Whether speed was excessive under navigation rules · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Court found speed excessive based on testimony and navigation rules · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed

Jury

Verdict

Not applicable - admiralty bench trial

Sentencing

Sentence challenged on appeal

false

Objects of relevance

Schooner Golden Rule (British topsail schooner of 200 tons net register)Cargo of sugar and molasses on Golden Rule (totally lost in collision)Steamer Chattahoochee (1,887 tons register US vessel)

Policy considerations

Due regard for human life in navigation
General expediency of equal division of damages to avoid interminable litigation
Protection of seamen as wards of admiralty

Authorities

Cited authorities (8)

The Zadok, 9 Prob. Div. 114

followedquotedprecedent

Cited for rule that sailing vessel with all canvas set in fog is not at moderate speed

Sir J. Hannen found bark going 'faster than five knots' and infringed rule

The North Star, 106 U. S. 17

appliedquotedprecedent

Cited for rule that division of damages in mutual fault collisions involves single liability for moiety of difference, not cross liabilities

Court lays down principle that entire damage is added together and equally divided

The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97

followedprecedent

Cited as reaffirming The North Star on division of damages

The City of New York, 147 U. S. 72

distinguishedprecedent

Cited for presumption rule when one vessel clearly at fault

Rule has no application where fault on each side determinable from facts

The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186

distinguishedprecedent

Cited for presumption rule when one vessel clearly at fault

Rule has no application where fault on each side determinable from facts

The Victory, 68 Fed. 895

questionedprecedent

Cited for possible apportionment of damages by degree of fault

If construed as claimed, would not control where fault same character

The Martello, 39 Fed. 505

distinguishedprecedent

Cited by schooner to support speed not contributing fault

Question is pure fact; case reversed by Supreme Court anyway

The Beta, 9 Prob. Div. 134

followedprecedent

Cited for rule that speed more than needed to keep steerage way in fog is not moderate

Related cases (6)

The Zadok, 9 Prob. Div. 114

prior appeal

Cited for rule on moderate speed in fog

The North Star, 106 U. S. 17

prior appeal

Applied for rule on division of damages in mutual fault collisions

The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97

prior appeal

Reaffirmed The North Star

The City of New York, 147 U. S. 72

prior appeal

Cited for presumption rule when one vessel clearly at fault

The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186

prior appeal

Cited for presumption rule when one vessel clearly at fault

The Victory, 68 Fed. 895

prior appeal

Cited for possible apportionment of damages by degree of fault

Statutes

International rules of navigation (Rev. St. § 4233) requiring moderate speed in fog
Harter Act (27 Stat. 445, § 3) governing carrier liability but held inapplicable to collision claims

Standards & doctrines

Moderate speed rule for vessels in fog under navigation statutes
Equal division of damages doctrine in mutual fault collisions (rusticum judicium)
Seamen as wards of admiralty doctrine

Legal principles applied

Presumption rule when one vessel clearly at fault does not apply where fault on both sides determinable from facts
Seamen are wards of the court in admiralty entitled to protective treatment

Notable quotes

“Therefore the vessels were navigating waters to which a due regard for human life requires a strict application of the statutory rule of 'moderate speed' in a fog or mist.”

majority — Discussing navigation rules in fog

Emphasizes safety purpose of moderate speed rule

“Seamen are the wards of the court in admiralty”

majority — Modifying decree to protect seamen's awards

States protective principle for seamen in admiralty

Index terms85

Summary terms

Legal mechanisms

Various actions

Various actors

Legal concepts

Legal outcomes

Legal issues

Legal procedures

Legal remedies

Legal evidence

Legal arguments

Legal defenses

Legal penalties

Legal procedural steps

Geo locations

Judges

Attorneys

Procedural terms

Substantive offenses

Entities and documentation

Legal actions

Action type

affirmed in part

Target

district court decree finding mutual fault and awarding half damages with recoupment

Appealed from

District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts

Context

Court affirms district court on fault findings, division of damages, and Harter Act application

Scope

full

Disposition vote

unanimous

Action type

modified

Target

district court decree regarding distribution between owners/master and mate/crew

Appealed from

District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts

Context

Court modifies decree sua sponte to exonerate mate and crew from recoupment, giving priority to their awards

Scope

in part

Further instructions

Decree modified so sums awarded mate and crew are exonerated by and have priority over amounts awarded owners and master

Disposition vote

unanimous

Action type

remanded

Target

case to district court

Appealed from

District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts

Context

Case remanded for proceedings in accordance with appellate opinion

Scope

further proceedings

Disposition vote

unanimous

Search facets

Parties

Judges

ColtPutnamWebb

Courts

Locations

Statutes cited