The New York Rule- Summer 1985

~
The Great Lakes… 84% of the continent’s fresh water… a different story in every drop.

By George J. Joachim

On the evening of October 21, 1891 a collision occurred in the lower Detroit River between the propellers Conemaugh and New York, resulting in the sinking of the Conemaugh and the loss of her cargo of 1,800 tons of package freight.

That was not unusual in those chaotic days before the turn of the century, when literally thousands of steamships and sailing vessels crowded the Great Lakes and connecting waterways. According to government sources nearly 6,000 vessels were wrecked on the lakes in the last two decades of the 19th century. Yet litigation surrounding the loss of the Conemaugh and her cargo reached the United States Supreme Court some eight years after the sinking and resulted in the adoption by that court of what has come to be known as the New York Rule.

This article looks at the origin of the New York Rule and how two veteran Great Lakes captains ran afoul of it in two remarkably similar accidents in the 1950s.

The Conemaugh Collision – Oct. 21, 1891

Immediately prior to the collision with the New York the Conemaugh was down bound in the Detroit River laden with a cargo of general merchandise bound for Erie, Pa. The steamer Burlington, trailing a long string of barges, was ahead of her on the river and well over toward the Canadian shore. The Burlington swung to starboard and was heading across the river toward a coal dock on the American side displaying her green lights to the Conemaugh, which altered her course to port so as to pass under the stern of the last barge in the Burlington’s tow.

The Conemaugh’s new course brought her well over to the Canadian side of the river, and as she approached the end of the Burlington’s tow her lookouts made out the lights of the New York upbound in the river. The Conemaugh sounded a signal of two blasts indicating her intention to continue toward the Canadian shore, allowing the New York to pass to her starboard side. Receiving no response to her passing signal the Conemaugh repeated the two-blast signal twice more as the distance between the two vessels narrowed. At the last moment the New York suddenly swung sharply to starboard, striking the Conemaugh on her starboard side and causing her to fill and sink in the shallow water near the Canadian shore.

Litigation surrounding the accident reached the United States Supreme Court during its October term in 1899. The conclusion of the Court was that both vessels were at fault in the collision: the New York for keeping an inefficient lookout and for failing to answer the repeated signals, and the Conemaugh for not stopping when the New York failed to answer her signals.

In finding partial responsibility on the part of the Conemaugh the Supreme Court stated:

“The New York made no answer to this third signal. The duty of the Conemaugh at this juncture was plain. She should have stopped her engines after the second signal, and, if necessary to bring her to a complete standstill, have reversed them. Nothing is better settled than that, if a steamer be approaching another vessel which has disregarded her signals, or whose position or movements are uncertain, she is bound to stop until her course be ascertained with certainty.“’

The  Pioneer and the Wallschiff –  Oct. 2, 1953

The evening of Oct. 2,1953 was clear and mild as the Cleveland-Cliffs bulk carrier Pioneer slid silently under the Blue Water bridge and into the St. Clair River with 9,000 tons of iron ore in her holds. Capt. Timothy O’Leary, a veteran of 43 years on the lakes, was on the bridge despite the late hour as his ship negotiated the treacherous currents where Lake Huron empties into the narrow river. While still above the bridge the captain had noticed the green running light of a vessel off his starboard bow well in toward the American side and considerably south, or downstream, from his position. As the Pioneer drew closer to the upbound vessel Capt. O’Leary gave a two-blast signal indicating his intention to direct his course to port, the approaching ship being too close to the American side of the channel for the customary port to port passing. After a 30-second interval during which no answer was received from the upbound vessel, Capt. O’Leary blew a danger signal to alert the master of the other ship and followed this with another two blast signal. Again no answer was received, and the vessels continued on their parallel courses.

Shortly after the second passing signal, and when the ships were within 1,200 feet of each other, the upbound craft suddenly swung to starboard, heading across the river and across the path of the Pioneer.

The collision occurred near midstream in Canadian waters with the bow of the Pioneer ripping a huge hole in the port side of the now-mortally wounded vessel. Following the impact Capt. O’Leary displayed remarkable presence of mind by keeping the bow of the Pioneer in the side of the stricken side and driving it out of the narrow shipping channel and toward the Canadian shore, where it settled in 40 feet of water.

The sunken vessel was the German motorship Wallschiff paying its first visit to the Great Lakes. The only man aboard the Wallschiff at the time of the accident who had ever sailed the St. Clair River prior to that night was Capt. Harold Patterson, the Canadian pilot who had boarded the ship at Kingston, Ontario. Tragically, Capt. Patterson died of a heart attack during the collision.

The crew of the Wallschiff was made up of German nationals, most of whom were of a very tender age. The wheelsman of the bridge at the time of the collision was only 15 years old with but a few months’ sailing experience. The German captain of the Wallschiff claimed to have been proceeding up the Canadian side of the river shortly before the collision and that he exchanged one-blast passing signals with the Pioneer. This version of the events was entirely contradicted by several disinterested witnesses who had viewed the accident from the shore. Apparently considerable confusion existed on the bridge of the Wallschiff in the last moments before the collision, undoubtedly exacerbated by the language barrier and the unfamiliarity of the Germans with the waters. The unfortunate death of Capt. Patterson made reconstruction of these events virtually impossible.

The lawsuit that arose from the sinking was heard in the United States District Court, where the judge accepted almost without exception the version of the facts advanced by the crew of the Pioneer and supported by the independent witnesses. Yet despite the erratic manner in which the Wallschiff had been operated the Court also found that the Pioneer had been partially responsible for the collision.

Rule 26, a codification of the New York Rule, of the Great Lakes Pilot Rules provided as follows:

“If the pilot of a steam vessel to which a passing signal is sounded deems it unsafe to accept and assent to said signal, he shall not sound a cross signal; but in that case, and in every case where the pilot of one steamer fails to understand the course or intention of an approaching steamer, whether from signals being given or answered erroneously, or from other causes, the pilot of such steamer so receiving the first passing signal, or the pilot so in doubt, shall sound several short and rapid blasts of the whistle; and if the vessels have approached within half a mile of each other both shall reduce their speed to bare steerageway, and, if necessary, stop and reverse.”

The trial judge found that the master of the Pioneer had violated Rule 26 and thus contributed to the accident. According to the Court, Capt. O’Leary admitted that after his first two-signal blast went unanswered for 30 seconds he blew a danger signal to “wake up” the watch on the approaching vessel. At this point Capt. O’Leary clearly was in doubt as to the intention of the other vessel and, even though the two ships were not on a collision course at the time, Rule 26 required that he immediately reduce to bare steerageway or stop and reverse.

Apparently considerable testimony was offered at the trial by veteran Great Lakes sailors in support of the actions taken by Capt. O’Leary. The Court recognized that in everyday practice Rule 26 was often ignored and that few masters brought their vessels to a stop simply because a routine passing signal was not answered promptly when no other evidence of danger was apparent.

The Court quoted with approval a prior decision of the appellate courts: “masters who choose to devine the purposes of other vessels and keep on, may avoid the charge of overcaution, but they take their chances.“²

The Royalton and the Monrovia – June 25, 1959

Six years after the sinking of the Wallschiff the Liberian freighter Monrovia was lost on Lake Huron in circumstances that were remarkably similar to those of the St. Clair River collision.

June 25, 1959 was a fog-shrouded day on Lake Huron, and even the mid- day sun was unable to burn through the mist. Capt. G. B. Albinson was bringing his 536-foot Canadian bulk carrier Royalton down the lake with a cargo of grain for Montreal. Lake charts set out separate courses for upbound and downbound traffic. The downbound course is to the east of the upbound with a seven-mile safety zone set up between the two courses. At approximately 12:45 p.m. the Royalton heard a radio message from another vessel preceding her down the lake indicating that she had just had a “narrow scrape” with a saltwater vessel in the downbound course.

At 1:05 p.m. the Royalton was abeam of Thunder Bay Light where radar observation confirmed that she was nearly two miles within the safety zone. Soon after this a target appeared on the ship’s radar two degrees off the starboard bow and 13 miles ahead. The Royalton altered five degrees to port and the approaching vessel was watched continuously on the radar. Over the next half hour the distance between the vessels narrowed, and Capt. Albertson again ordered a five-degree course change to keep his ship east of the other vessel. By 1:40 p.m. the distance had narrowed to about five miles, and the radar indicated that the ship was now some 30 degrees off the starboard bow.

At this point a fog signal was heard from the general direction of the radar target, and Capt. Albertson ordered still another course change farther to port, reduced his ship’s speed and sounded a two-blast passing signal indicating his intention to make a starboard to starboard passing. When no response was received to this signal Capt. Albertson again sounded two blasts, but this time the signal was answered with one blast. Recognizing the danger, Capt. Albertson immediately ordered his engines full speed astern and sounded a danger signal. Shortly after this, the radar bearing indicated that the other vessel had made a sudden, radical course change to starboard and was in fact swinging directly across the path of the Royalton.

The Liberian freighter Monrovia was a converted Liberty ship making its first visit to the Great Lakes. Heading up the lake with a cargo of steel, the crew had dropped off their Canadian pilot at Sarnia. By the time the Monrovia loomed out of the fog the forward momentum of the Royalton had been sharply reduced, but the collision was now inevitable. The bow of the Royalton sliced into the port side of the Monrovia between the first and second hatches. The site of the accident was determined to have been in the safety zone between the two courses, one mile west of the downbound course. The Monrovia stayed afloat for some 11 hours after the collision, and her entire crew was picked up by the Norman W. Foy. She eventually sank in 150 feet of water 11 miles southwest of Thunder Bay Island. The Royalton proceeded on to Sarnia on her own power.

Following a trial in United States District Court the Royalton was found to have been without fault in the accident. Obviously no good explanation could be offered as to why the Monrovia was proceeding up the lake without apparent regard for the designated course and why the sudden course change was made immediately before the collision. However, the decision of the district judge was overruled by the Sixth Circuit of the Court of Appeals, who found that the master of the Royalton had contributed to the accident by disregarding the New York Rule:

“The Royalton’s . . . most serious fault was her failure to reverse engines and come to a stop when her first passing signal was not answered. It is well settled that if a steamer be approaching another vessel which has disregarded her signals, or whose position or movements are uncertain, she is bound to stop until the course and intentions of the other vessel be ascertained with certainty.“³

Conclusion

Remarkable similarities stand out in the accidents that claimed the Wallschiff and the Monrovia, In each situation, obvious primary responsibility rested with masters making their first visits to the Great Lakes. In each case their vessels were far from their normal course, and in each case they ignored passing signals from the downbound vessels having right of way. Most importantly, in each instance they executed radical course changes to starboard at the last moment, bringing them directly into the paths of the approaching ships. Yet in each instance the Great Lakes captain had to share responsibility because of what the courts felt was a violation of the New York Rule.

It is apparent that the rule has very limited application in everyday events. Failure of an approaching vessel to promptly respond to a routine passing signal, without any other evidence of danger, may not be a justification for bringing your vessel to a complete stop. Yet if disaster should follow, the captain must bear responsibility. The Court in the Monrovia case summed it up best:

“The lesson that steam vessels must stop their engines in the presence of danger, or even of anticipated danger, is a hard one to learn, but the failure to do so has been the cause of the condemnation of so many vessels that it would seem that these repeated admonitions must ultimately have some effect.” ⁴

 

Notes and Sources

¹Conemaugh v. the New York, 175 U.S. 187, 20 S.Ct. 67, 44 L.Ed. 126 (1899).

“Partenreederei Wallschiff v. the Pioneer, 164 F.Supp. 421 (1958).

“Federal Insurance Co. v. SS Royalton, 212 F.2d 677 (1963).

⁴Ibid

Port Huron Times Herald Oct. 3, 1953.

Port Huron Times Herald June 26, 1959.

Read More of Inland Seas Online

---

Learn more about our award-winning Inland Seas© journal and become an Inland Seas member