Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/143

 128 FBDBBAL EEPOBTEE. �After the collision the mizzen-mast of the bark was all of her above water, atid this was distinctly seen from the steamer when she was at the distanca of 600 yards from it. (8) The damages caused by the collision vvere assessed at $50,248.23. �CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. �The following conclusions are fairly deducible from the evidence and the f acts f ound : �(1) That the vessels were approaching each other from opposite directions, npon lines so close to each other as to involve the necessity of a deflection by one or the other of them to avoid a collision. �(2) ihat the lookout on the bark saw the steamer when she was nearly a mile distant, and she was held steadily on her course, and that she thereby ful- filled her legal obligation. Even if her helm was ported it was at a time and nnder circumstances which did not involve any culpability on her part. �(3) That it was the duty of the steamer to keep out of the way of the bark, and, to that end, so to change her course as to preclude all danger of col- lision. �(4) That the bark could and ought to have been seen by the steamer when they were sufflciently distant from each other to enable the steamer to give the bark enough sea-roora to avert any risk of collision. In this failure to observe the bark the steamer was negligent. �(5) No satisfactory or sufflcient reason is furnished by the respondent's evidence for this failure of observation. If it resulted from the inattention of the steamer's lookout, or because their vision was intercepted by her fore try-sail, she was clearly culpable. If it is explicable by the condition of the atmosphere, no matter by what cause it was produced, it was the steamer's duty to reduce her speed, and to place a lookout on her turtle-back. An omis- sion to observe these precautions was negligence. But, considering the proof that the bark held her course, and that the steamer might have seen her by proper vigilance, when suitable precaution against collision might have been taken, a mere speculative explanation of the steamer's presumptive culpability cannot be accepted as sufficient. �I do not deem it necessary to enforce these conclusions by extended argument, The whole case is so clearly and satisfactorily treated by the learned judge of the district court that I adopt his opinion, and affirm the decree entered by him. �A decree wHl, therefore, be entered in this court against the respondent for |50,248.23, with interest from Maroh 25, 1881, and oosts. ��� �