Steffens v. United States , 32 F.2d 206 ( 1929 )

MANTON, Circuit Judge

(dissenting). The Aalsum was guilty of faults of navigation which require a modification of this decree for damages against one vessel. It was conceded by the appellant that the Danne-daike was in part responsible for the collision. There is no sound reason to excuse the Aal-sum. She was governed by article 16 of the International Rules, requiring her in a fog to go at a moderate speed, having careful regard for’ existing circumstances and conditions. A fog signal was heard apparently forward of her beam, the position of which signaling vessel she was unable to ascertain, and she failed to navigate with caution until the danger of collision was over. Prior to hearing the fog signals, she was running at full speed; she had visibility for but 2,000 feet. She heard the fog signal at 10:05, and her engines were slowed and continued under slow speed until 10:15, when the Dannedaike was sighted. She then went full speed ahead, with her helm hard aport, and continued for about a minute, and her engines were put full speed astern at 10:16, and the collision occurred at 10:19.

It is apparent that, having reversed her engines for about three minutes, she had considerable headway at the time of collision, for she continued on across the bow of the Dannedaike and disappeared in the fog. She continued reversing for about five minutes after the collision, finally gathering stem-way, and nearly backed into a second collision with' the Dannedaike. The latter was then stopped, dead in the wake of the Aalsum. For these violations she is at fault, within the principle of The Selja, 243 U. S. 291, 37 S. Ct. 270, 61 L. Ed. 726; The Esperanza (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 945; The Suffolk (C. C. A.) 258 F. 219; The Haven (C. C. A.) 277 F. 957; and The Manehioneal (C. C. A.) 243 F. 801. If she had stopped her engines in the first instance, when hearing the signal and while enveloped in the fog, she probably would not have reached the spot of. the collision, and the other vessel would have gone out of danger of the collision. The Britannia, 153 U. S. 130, 14 S. Ct. 795, 38 L. Ed. 660; The Georgic (D. C.) 180 F. 863. These reasons require a modi-fieation, and both vessels should be held at fault.

I dissent from the prevailing opinion, which exonerates The Aalsum.