Pilot

An officer serving on board of a ship during the course of a voyage, and having charge of the helm and of the ship’s route. An officer authorized by law who is taken on board at a particular place for the purpose of conducting a ship through a river, road, or channel, or from or into port. Pilots of the second description are established by legislative enactments at the principal seaports in this country, and have rights, and are bound to perform duties, agreeably to the provisions of the several laws establishing them. Pilots have been established in all maritime countries. After due trial and experience of their qualifications, they are licensed to offer themselves as guides in difficult navigation; and they are usually, on the other hand, bound to obey the call of a ship-master to exercise their functions; Abb. Sh. 13th ed.

190; Snell v. Rich, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 305; Bussy v. Donaldson, 4 Dali (U. S.) 206, 1 L. Ed. 802; 5 B. & P. 82; 5 Rob. Adm. 308; Laws of Oleron, art. 23; Act of Congr. of August 7, 1789, § 4; Pardessus, n. 637.

The master of a vessel may decline the services of a pilot, but in that event he must pay the legal fees; Camp v. The Marcellus, 1 Cliff. 492, Fed. Cas. No. 2,347. A pilot who first offers his services, if rejected, is entitled to his fee; The America, 2 Am. Law Rev. 458, Fed. Cas. No. 289; Wilson v. Mc- Namee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. Ed. 234. The pilot is to conduct the navigation, regulate the course of the ship and the management of the sails; 7 Moore, P. C. 171, 134. He is not liable for damages to the vessel unless caused by his failure to use ordinary diligence, i. e., the degree of skill commonly possessed by others in the same employment; * Wilson v. Pilots’ Ass’n, 57 Fed. 227. A river pilot is bound to be familiar with the channel of the river, and with the such knowledge, but not for damages occasioned by an error of judgment on his part; The Tom Lysle, 48 Fed. 600. Shipowners are responsible to third parties for obedience to the pilot; bis orders ordinarily, are to be implicitly obeyed. In The China, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 53, 19 L. Ed. 67, it was held in admiralty that a steamship is liable for damages arising out of a collision with another steamship, due solely to the negligence of a compulsory pilot. In Ralli v. Troop, 157 U. S. 386, 402, 15 Sup. Ct. 657, 39 L. Ed. 742, the rule of The China was followed; the opinion of the court placing it upon “a distinct principle of the maritime law that the vessel, in whosesoever hands she lawfully is, is herself considered as the wrongdoer.” (Rut this responsibility does not include the cargo; id.) The continental cases are m accord, but the English rule holds that the ship is not liable in admiralty; Ralli v. Troop, 157 U. S. 386, 15 Sup. Ct. 657, 39 L. Ed. 742; 2 W. Rob. 10 (and now by statute in England in all cases). In a common law action the owners are not liable in such a case; thus, in Homer Ramsdell Transp.

Co. v. La Compagnie Gcnerale Transatlantique, 182 IT.

S. 406, 21 Sup. Ct. 831, 45 L. Ed. 1155, a steamship, by the negligence of a compulsory pilot, struck a pier; in an action at common law the shipowners were held not liable. And the rule is the same in England; Ralli v. Troop, 157 U. S. 386, 15 Sup. Ct. 657, 39 L. Ed. 742. Of the judgment of the court in The China, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 53, 19 L. Ed. 67, John C. Gray says (Nature and Sources of the Law 47) that “Judge Holmes [in Com. Law 28] speaks of this decision with more tenderness than it deserves.” The owner remains liable for the ship’s management in all things that do not relate to mere navigation; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943. A compulsory pilot differs from an ordinary employ^ and may be held liable to the vessel for damages she has been compelled to pay by reason of his negligence; Guy v. Donald, 157 Fed. 527, 85 C. C. A. 291, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1114, 13 Ann. Gas. 947,