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: 73
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER J3
after going to the shore in a motorboat he walked two squares and was
about to step on a street car before he heard any danger signal.
Much consideration of the evidence leads to these conclusions: The
Rockefeller and the Falls City were approaching each other, if not
end on, near enough to that relation to require that each should give
careful attention to the rules of navigation to prevent collision. The
Falls City signaled for a starboard to starboard passing, and without
an assent from the Rockefeller proceeded until it was too late to
avert a collision The Rockefeller gave a port to port signal, and paid
no attention to the signal of the Falls City, when, if she had observed,
she would have know n that her signals had not been understood, and
that the Falls City and the two tugs were coming on, demanding a
starboard to starboard passing. She did not promptly repeat her sig-
nal when it was not answered.
 The navigators of the Rockefeller are subject to criticism for
their failure to repeat the signal, and for not attending more closely
to the signals and movements of the Falls City. She would be held at
fault, and liable, if her negligence in these respects had been the prox-
imate cause of the collision. But we do not think it was. She was
almost at rest; the Falls City could plainly see her, and was enjoined
by the rules to pass port to port. There was abundant room for the
passing, without any movement of the Rockefeller. Under such con-
ditions it was the obvious duty of the Falls City to pass port to port,
even if the Rockefeller had given no signal. Nothing could have jus-
tified the attempt of a starboard to starboard passing, except a con-
senting signal from the Rockefeller. Her navigators are therefore
not in a position to charge the accident to fault of the Rockefeller in
not signaling to her to do what the law required her to do. We think
the fault in the navigation of the Falls City was the sole proximate
cause of the accident.
 The Falls City being in charge of the Bisso Towboat Compa-
ny under an independent contract of towing, that company and its
tugs, and not the Falls City, are responsible for the fault in her nav-
igation. Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 110, 16 L. Ed. 591; Eugene F.
Moran, 212 U. S. 466, 29 Sup. Ct. 339, 53 L. Ed. 600; The Crom-
well, 259 Fed. 166, 170 C. C. A. 234; The Dorset, 260 Fed. 32, 171 C.
C. A. 68.
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/m1/95/: accessed April 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.