Summary

John McLean Snow v. Hill — Opinion of the Court

Peter Curran was pilot of the Star, and on duty when the collision occurred. The Star had her full complement of men; was nearer to the western than the eastern shore. On seeing the Crescent City coming, he rang the bell to stop the engines; then rang the big bell hard, three or four times. The crescent City seemed to come towards them, on the larboard side, fill she got nearly abreast the ship's bow; then she hauled, as witness thought, nearly square across, until she hit the ship between the cathead and the stern, and hove her over on the guards of the tow-boat, which were broken.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Snow v. Hill — Opinion of the Court

And when this was apparent, nothing more could be done by the tow-boat than was done. It would be a strange rule of navigation to require a boat descending in the middle of a river, more than twenty-four hundred feet in width, to keep out of the way of a vessel ascending the river close to the shore, a thousand feet from the descending boat, which should change its course to a direction across the river, out of its proper course, and with the view of crossing the bow of the descending boat. No stronger case could be put or imagined, to show fault in the ascending boat.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Snow v. Hill — Opinion of the Court

The statement of Foote is conclusive against his theory. He starboarded his helm, to pass the western side of the tow. His approach was seen by those on board the Star and the other vessels connected with her, some time, and preparations were made to avoid the collision. This shows that Foote was mistaken as to the position of the tow, and this mistake was fatal. Whether it resulted from his ignorance of the course of the river, or of his duties as a pilot, or from both, is immaterial.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature