motor boat operator did not again see the row boat until the collision occurred. The elevation of the bow of the motor boat, caused by the effect upon the conformation formation of its hull of the speed at which it was traveling through the water after entering the subsidiary channel, obstructed completely its operator's view of the row boat.
12. There were other small boats in the general vicinity of the collision when it occurred, and the width of the channel in which the motor boat was moving was constricted by the presence of shoals on either side.
13. No lookout was maintained by the operator of the motor boat nor were other appropriate and available measures taken to avoid the collision after the bow of the motor boat became elevated to a point obstructing the operator's forward view of the channel and adjacent waters.
14. No whistle, horn or similar audible signal was given by the operator of the motor boat as its collision with the row boat became imminent, although some of the occupants of the row boat screamed, shouted and stood up waving their arms when the collision appeared inevitable.
Conclusions of Law
1. This proceeding is within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court and is authorized by the provision of 46 U.S.C.A. § 183 et seq. This Court also has jurisdiction of the parties to this proceeding.
2. The collision between petitioner's motor boat and the row boat containing the claimants referred to in the foregoing findings of fact was principally due to the fault of Arthur Hocking, the operator of the motor boat.
3. Immediately prior to the collision Arthur Hocking was operating his father's boat at a speed excessive under the circumstances, failing as he did to maintain a proper lookout to ascertain the presence and course of the row boat or to take appropriate and available measures to avoid collision therewith.
4. Respondent-impleaded, Ernest E. Storr, is not liable because the motor boat was gravely at fault and such fault as Storr may have been guilty of was venial or merely technical, did not contribute to the collision, and may therefore be disregarded.
5. The motor boat was not a 'seagoing vessel' as defined in § 183(f) of Title 46 of the United States Code Annotated.
6. The collision aforesaid between the motor boat and the row boat was occasioned without the privity or knowledge of the petitioner, Horace A. Hocking, the owner of said motor boat.
7. The petitioner, Horace A. Hocking, as the owner of said motor boat, is entitled to limit his liability for any injury resulting from the collision aforesaid to the amount or value of petitioner's interest in said motor boat.
An order may be entered conforming to the findings and conclusions aforesaid.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.