TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Iberia

The Iberia, 123 F. 865 (2d Cir. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 23, 1903
Docket
No. 170
Judges
Pep
Citations
123 F. 86559 C.C.A. 3061903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4038
Syllabus
1. Collision—Steamer, and Sailing Vessel Meeting—Obstruction or Lights. A sailing vessel held solely in fault for a collision with a meeting steamship at sea in the night for allowing her sidelights to be obscured by her sails and for the failure to keep a proper lookout.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States fot the Eastern District of New York. • This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Eastern District of New York, holding the brigantine Carib solely in fault for a collision with the S. S. Iberia off Point Caballos, outside the harbor of Puerto Cortez, Spanish Honduras, in the evening of October 24, 1900.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pep

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PEP CURIAM.

The District Judge has so exhaustively discussed the evidence that it seems sufficient to refer to his opinion and express our concurrence in its findings and conclusions. It is not often, in collision cases, that conflicting testimony can be harmonized as satisfactorily as it can here. The presence of the steamer Foxhall a little to the west of the Iberia, and bound on a parallel course, accounts for the testimony from the Carib to the effect that the Iberia was to the westward of the Carib’s course. What the witnesses saw was the Foxhall. The evidence leaves no doubt that the starboard light of the Carib on her main rigging was obscured by the foresail, a circumstance which explains the testimony of those on the Iberia as to the dim white light, apparently a considerable distance off, which was undoubtedly the cabin light of the Carib, seen through the forward windows.

The Carib was grossly in fault for so arranging her lights and sails that upon occasions (such as this) there would be a considerable field of obscuration on one or both sides of her stem, and also for failing to keep a proper lookout, and thus not discovering the Iberia as promptly as she did the Foxhall. The faults of the Carib being thus primary, obvious, and inexcusable, the evidence to establish fault on the part of the Iberia must-be clear and convincing in order to make out a case for apportionment. We concur with the District Judge in the conclusion that there is no such proof of fault on her part.

The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1903: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The Kaiserine Maria Theresia125 F. 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1903)

Most recent

  1. The Kaiserine Maria Theresia125 F. 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list