The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 72
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
272 FEDERAL REPORTER
to starboard, and with knowledge that this maneuver would be diffi-
cult, if not impossible. Charged with this knowledge, and with the
further knowledge that under the pilot rule the Rockefeller was enti-
tled to give the commanding signal, he was bound, at the very least, as
soon as he failed to receive an assent to his signal for a starboard pas-
sage, either to navigate to starboard, so as to pass port to port, in
obedience to the rules, or to reverse and stop. Instead of doing this,
according to the testimony on his own behalf, he proceeded without
change until he had given a second signal for a starboard passing, and
received a dissent from the Rockefeller of one blast, demanding a port
to port passing. It was then too late. Going forward with the cur-
rent, which made control of his ship more difficult, when there was no
assent to his signal, on the assumption that the Rockefeller would
yield to his demand, and that he could have a safe starboard to star-
board passing, was evidently a proximate cause of the collision.
 The case of the Rockefeller is more difficult. The navigator of
the Rockefeller should have known that the Falls City, rounding the
bend in the sweep of the current, would probably expect any ascending
vessel to be on the other side of the river running the points, accord-
ing to the custom, and this situation required extra precaution on his
part. Gring v. Boyer, 157 Fed. 220, 84 C. C. A. 668. Her navigator
was indifferent to the signals of the Falls City, took no account of the
failure of the Falls City to assent to his signal, did not promptly re-
peat it, and made no effort to avoid the collision until the Falls City
was too near to prevent it. This is shown by the testimony of the
officers of the Rockefeller themselves, which is inconsistent and unsat-
isfactory. Harrison, the master, testified that when the Falls City was
a half mile away the bar pilot on the Rockefeller gave a signal of one
blast for a port to port passing and received an assenting signal of
one blast; that the courses of the two vessels at that time were par-
allel, about 400 feet apart; that immediately after giving the assent-
ing signal the Falls City suddenly changed her course and swung
across the course of the Rockefeller. The master also testified that
another signal of one blast was given by the river pilot of the Rocke-
feller, five minutes after the first. He is contradicted, however, by
the other officers on the Rockefeller. Davies, chief engineer, and Sea-
gren, third officer, testified that they heard the single blast from the
Rockefeller, but heard no signal of any kind from the Falls City.
Lombard, the bar pilot, says he gave the signal of one blast, but could
not remember response or signal of any kind from the Falls City.
Lombard gives also the significant testimony that, when the Falls City
was half a mile distant, he blew one blast, without any impression of
an assenting signal. He appears, according to his testimony, to have
leisurely turned over the Rockefeller to the river pilot, without tak-
ing further notice of the Falls City or giving any other signal, al-
though the Falls City was coming toward the Rockefeller, having
given no response to indicate that the signal had been heard or un-
derstood. According to the testimony of Neihysel, the river pilot of
the Rockefeller, the Falls City was only 150 to 200 yards away when
he gave the second signal of one blast. Lombard testified, also, that
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/94/: accessed April 30, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.