Overview
Case summary
This admiralty case involves a collision between the schooner Jacob S. Winslow and two barges towed by the steam tug Yesta in Vineyard Sound on October 16, 1893. The barge Ellangowan was badly damaged and beached, barge 56 suffered mast damage, and the schooner sustained forward damage. The district court held the tug solely responsible and limited its liability to the value of the tug and pending freight. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that: (1) the schooner was not liable under the statute requiring vessels to stand by after collision, as it had reasonable cause given the circumstances including the presence of the tug and other assistance, and (2) the tug was solely responsible for the collision because it failed to keep clear of the schooner, attempting to pass to windward then changing course back to leeward, leaving a barge in the schooner's path.
Abstract
In this admiralty collision case, a schooner collided with two barges towed by a steam tug, damaging the barges and schooner. The district court held the tug solely responsible and limited its liability to the value of the tug and pending freight, a ruling affirmed on appeal. The appeals court found the schooner had reasonable cause not to stand by after the collision due to the presence of the tug and other assistance, and confirmed the tug's fault for failing to keep clear by changing course and placing a barge in the schooner's path.
Opinion of the court
opinionWEBB, District Judgejoined by COLT, PUTNAM
- Statute of September 4, 1890 imposes qualified obligation to stand by after collision
- Schooner had reasonable cause for not standing by given circumstances
- Tug was solely responsible for collision due to faulty navigation
- Schooner properly held her course while tug failed to keep clear
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Collision occurred in Vineyard Sound between two vessels and barges
- Libels filed in district courts of New York and Massachusetts
- Petition for limitation of liability filed in Massachusetts district court
Procedural posture
- Responsibility for the collision
- Application of statute of September 4, 1890 regarding failure to stand by
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Court found schooner had reasonable cause for not standing by given circumstances
Issue preserved for review
clearly erroneous
Court found tug attempted to pass to windward then changed course, leaving barge in schooner's path
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- District court erred in finding schooner not liable under statute requiring vessels to stand by after collision — evidentiary · no error foundnot applicable
- District court erred in finding tug solely responsible for collision — evidentiary · no error foundnot applicable
Statutory interpretation
1Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Interpretation of statute of September 4, 1890 — de novo Statutory interpretation reviewed de novo
- Findings of fact regarding navigation and collision — clearly erroneous Factual findings reviewed for clear error
Timeline
Collision between schooner Jacob S. Winslow and two barges towed by steam tug Yesta in Vineyard Sound
Underlying incident giving rise to the litigation
Owners of Ellangowan file libel in New York against both schooner and tugboat
Initial filing in the litigation
Owners of Winslow libel tugboat in district of Massachusetts
Second filing in the litigation
Owners of Yesta file petition for limitation of liability in Massachusetts district court
Petition seeking to limit liability to value of tug and pending freight
Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court decree
Outcome: Affirmed
Final disposition of the appeal
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
10 facts- Collision between schooner Jacob S. Winslow and two barges (Ellangowan and barge 56) towed by steam tug Yesta
- Ellangowan loaded with coal was badly injured and beached
- Barge 56 had masts carried away and slight damage
- Schooner lost stem and suffered forward damage totaling $1,077.40
- Night was dark but clear with no fog or mist
- Wind was six-knot breeze or less
- Sea was smooth
- Schooner was sailing west-southwest without cargo or ballast
- Tug was towing two barges east-northeast at about four knots
- Length of tug and tow was about 1,500 feet
Procedural history
5 steps- Owners of Ellangowan filed libel in New York against schooner and tug
- Owners of Winslow libeled tug in Massachusetts district court
- Owners of Yesta filed petition for limitation of liability in Massachusetts district court
- District court entered final decree limiting liability and holding tug solely responsible
- Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals
Evidence in the record
- Testimony of schooner's captain, first officer, and wheelsman that schooner held her course
- Testimony of tug captain that barges had lights set
- Conflicting testimony about wind direction and speed of schooner
- Testimony about lights on barges
- Petition for limitation of liability
- Libels filed in district courts
- Position of vessels after collision
- Extent of damage to vessels
- Evidence type: Testimony about lights on barge 56 · Challenge basis: Contradiction between witnesses · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Court found no willful untruthfulness and deemed issue not material to navigation · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Jury
Sentencing
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (3)
Related cases (3)
Statutes
- Statute of September 4, 1890, § 1 (26 Stat. 425) - duty to stand by after collision
Standards & doctrines
- Qualified obligation to stand by after collision
- Duty to keep clear for vessel with right of way
Legal principles applied
- Strict construction of penal statutes
- Master's duty to consider safety of own vessel when deciding whether to stand by