(after stating the facts as above).

I am of the view that the proximate cause of the damages caused by the S. S. Andros Tower was the sheers of the vessel while she was being shifted from berth 215 to berth 163, Los Angeles Harbor, and that the record does not disclose any fault by the pilot, Lee Weyant, Crowley Launch & Tugboat Company or Maroceano Compania Naviera S. A. of Panama, which caused or contributed to the accident.

In all drifting cases, the drifting ship

See, Carr v. Hermosa Amusement Corporation, Limited, 9 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 983, 984 . And see the writer’s opinion in The Elwood, D.C.1947, 69 F.Supp. 368 .

When a piloted vessel is grounded fault must be inferred

And see, Atlee v. Union Packet Co., 1874, 21 Wall. 389, 396-397 , 22 L.Ed. 619 . But the sheers of a vessel have been called

I find nothing in the record from which to infer any fault on the part of the navigator. Perhaps the most thorough exculpation was given him by the Captain of the S. S. Andros Tower. We quote from the record:

This statement (and additional ones to be referred to hereinafter) also exculpates the ship for failure to drop the starboard anchor when ordered to do so when the ship began to swing to port fast, because there is nothing from which to draw an inference that had the order been obeyed the sheer could have been stopped and damage avoided. And before fastening liability we must find a proximate causal relation between the act and the damage. The strongest statement on the subject is that if this had been done it “might” have helped.

Again quoting from the testimony of the Captain of the S. S. Andros Tower:

So we have a situation where the Chief Officer, fearing that dropping the anchor might hurt the men on the tug, declined to obey the order. The Captain approved the action. And we cannot penalize the ship when a trained officer, in a perilous .situation, uses his best judgment. The more so as it is not possible to say that the accident would have been avoided had the order been obeyed.

I cannot find any deviation from sound construction in the ship that, in any manner, made her more difficult to maneuver in the circumstances in which the accident occurred. And the ship, although a super-tanker, had the right to use the particular berth, which the City maintained, under compulsory pilotage.

The statement made by one witness that four tugs .should have been used does not warrant a finding of inadequacy in the means used by the pilot. Similar navigational operations with three tugs had been executed, without mishap, by the pilot with similar types of ships and with this very ship. The tugs responded well to the orders given to them. The breaking of the line of one of the tugs cannot be related to the accident as a proximate cause. The fast sheering began before the break. The type of line was standard and had been used on similar operations. There is no showing that the particular line was defective or that its strength had been weakened by long use. In other respects the pilot attested the collaboration and obedience of the tug operators. Indeed, he said that when it became evident that there was “trouble” the tug captains seemed to anticipate the orders which he actually gave in changing their maneuvering position. So the only logical conclusion to reach is that we have here a case of

Judge William Denman, years ago. warned us that

Here the sheering of the vessel was unprecedented, unpredictable and inexplicable.

Hence the following ruling: Judgment will be that no recovery be had by any of the parties in this proceedings, ap *533 pearing as libelants in rem or in person-am, or cross-libelants in rem or in personam, or as interpleaded parties, or as intervening parties against any of the parties appearing in whatever capacity and through whatever pleadings or stipulations. The parties to pay their own costs.