Ii L

Ed. 35; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. (U. S.) 101, 14 L. Ed. OS; although wilfully committed by the master; Ralston v. Stale Rights, Crabbe 22, Fed. Cas. No. 11,540; Dusar v. Murgatroyd, 1 Wash. C. C. 13. Fed. Cas. No. 4,199; Dias v. The Revenge. 1 Wash. C. C. 262, Fed. Cas. No. 3,877. But see 1 W. Rob. 399; 2 id. 502; Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 343, 32 Am. Dec. 507. Where one vessel, clearly shown to be guilty of a fault adequate in itself to have caused a collision, seeks to impugn the other vessel, there is a presumption in favor of the latter, which can only be rebutted by clear proof of a contributing fault, and this principle is peculiarly applicable to a vessel at anchor, complying with regulations concerning lights and receiving injuries, through the fault of a steamer in motion; The Oregon, 15S U. S. 1S6, 15 Sup. Ct. S04, 39 L. Ed. 913. If a cargo be damaged by collision between two vessels, the owner may pursue both vessels or either, or the owners or both, or either; and in case he proceeds against one only, and both are held in fault, he may recover bis entire damages of the one sued; In re Eastern Dredging Co., 1S2 Eed. 179; The Beaconsfield, 158 U. S. 303, 15 Sup. Ct. S60, 39 L. Ed. 993. These four classes of cases are noted in 2 Dods. S5, by Lord Stowell. Full compensation is, in general, to be made in such cases for the loss and damage 2 W. Rob. 279; including all damages which are fairly attributable exclusively to the act of the original wrong-doer, or which may be said to be the direct consequence of his wrongful act; 3 W. Rob. 7, 282; 11 M. & W. 228; 1 Swab. 200; The Narragansett, 1 Blatchf. 211, Fed. Cas. No/ 10,017; Vautine v. The Lake, 2 Wall. Jr. 52, Fed. Cas. No. 16,878; Smith v. Condry, 1 How. (TJ. S.) 28, 11 L. Ed. 35; The Catharine, 17 How. (U. S.) 170, 15 L. Ed. 233; The Anna W., 201 Fed. 58, 119 C. C. A. 396. As to limited liability of owners, see Ship. For the prevention of collisions, certain rules have been adopted (see Navigation Rules) which are binding upon vessels approaching each other from the time the necessity for precaution begins, and continue to be applicable, as the vessels advance, so long as the means and opportunity to avoid the danger remain; New York & L. U. S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Rumball, 21 How. 372, 16 L. Ed. 144. But, whatever may be the rules of navigation in force at the place of collision, it is apparent that they must sometimes yield to extraordinary circumstances, and cannot be regarded as binding in all cases. Thus, if a vessel necessarily goes so near a rock, or the land, that by following the ordinary rules she would inevitably go upon the rock, or get on shore or aground, no rule should prevail over the preservation of property and life; 1 W. Rob. 478, 485; 4 J. B. Moore 314; The Maggie J. Smith, 123 TT. S. 349, 8 Sup. Ct. 159. 31 L. Ed. 175; Belden v. Chase, 150 TL S. 674, 14 Sup. Ct. 264, 37 L. Ed. 1218; but obedience to the rules is not a fault, even if a different course would have prevented a collision, and the necessity must be clear and the emergency sudden and alarming before an act of disobedience can be excused; Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674, 14 Sup. Ct. 264, 37 L. Ed. 1218. No vessel should unnecessarily incur the probability of a collision by a pertinacious adherence to the rule of navigation; 1 W. Rob. 471. 478; Hawkins v. Steamboat Co., 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 452; and if it was clearly in the power of one of the vessels which came into collision to have avoided all danger by giving way, she will be held bound to do so, notwithstanding the rule of navigation; 6 Thornt. Adm. 600, 607; Lane v. The A. Denike, 3 Cliff. 117, Fed. Cas. No. 8,015. All navigation rules pertinent to a given situation are to be construed together, and while each of two approaching vessels has the right to expect the other to navigate in accordance with the rules or a passing agreement, when it becomes evident that either is not doing so, it is the duty of the other to navigate accordingly and take such measures as may seem necessary to avoid a collision; U. S. v. Erie R. Co., 172 Fed. 50, not do so without danger; Biggs v. Barry, 2 Curt. C. C. 363, Fed. Cas. No. 1,402; Crockett v. The Isaac Newton, 18 How. 581, 15 L. Ed. 492. There must be a lookout properly stationed and kept; and under circumstances of special danger, two; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. S04, 39 L. Ed. 913; and the absence of such a lookout is prima facie evidence of negligence; St. John v. Paine, 10 How. (U. S.) 557, 13 L. Ed. 537; Whltridge v. Dill, 23 How. (TL S.) 448, 16 L. Ed. 581; The Scioto, Daveis, 359, Fed. Cas. No. 12,50S; The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. 167, 1 C. C. A. 219; The Nellie Clark, 50 Fed. 585. The rule requiring a lookout admits of no exception on account of size in favor of any craft capable of committing injury; The Marion, 56 Fed. 271. The absence of a lookout is not material where the presence of one would not have availed to prevent a collision; The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S. 371, 12 Sup. Ct. 711, 36 L. Ed. 469. A sailing vessel is entitled to assume that a steam vessel approaching her is being navigated with a proper lookout; The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. 167, 1 C. C. A. 219. By the International Code, rule 8, lights also must be kept; the rule was formerly otherwise in regard to vessels on the high seas; 2 W. Rob. 4; The Delaware v. The Osprey, 2 Wall. Jr. 268, Fed. Cas. No. 3,763. See Navigation Rules; The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugb, 12 How. (U. S.) 443, 13 L. Ed. 1058; Haney v. Packet Co., 23 How. (U. S.> 287, 16 L. Ed. 562; The Emily, 1 Blatchf. 236, Fed. Cas. No. 4,452; The Santa Claus, 1 Blatchf. 370, Fed. Cas. No. 12,326; Carsley v. White, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 254, 32 Am. Dec. 259; Simpson v. Hand, 6 Whart (Pa.) 324, 36 Am. Dec. 231; The Havilah, 50 Fed. 331, 1 C. C. A. 519; The Oregon, 158 TL S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943. Stu. Adm. Low. C. 222, 242; 1 Thornt. Adm. 592; 6 id. 176; 7 id. 507; 2 W. Rob. 377; 3 id. 7, 49. 190; 1 Swab. 20, 233. The injury to an insured vessel occasioned by a collision is a loss within the ordinary policy of insurance; 4 Ad. & E. 420; 6 N. & M. 713; Peters v. Ins. Co., 14 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 10 L. Ed. 371; General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. (U. S.) 352, 14 L. Ed. 452; Nelson v. Ins. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 477, 54 Am. Dec. 776; but when the collision is occasioned by the fault of the insured vessel, or the fault of both vessels, the insurer is not ordinarily liable for the amount of the injury done to the other vessel which may be decreed against the vessel insured; 4 Ad. & E. 420; 7 E. & B. 172; 40 E. L. & Eq. 54; Mathews v. Ins. Co., 11 N. Y. 9; General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. (U. S.) 352, 14 L. Ed. 452, and cases cited; but some policies now provide that the insurer shall be liable for such a loss; 40 upon another vessel's anchor, is within a policy of marine insurance providing against collisions between vessels; [1901] 2 K. B. 792. See Matsunanii, Collisions between Warships and Merchant V< When the colli inn v. us without fault on either side, and occurred in a foreign country, where, In accordance with the local law, the damages were equally divided between the colliding vessels, the amount of the decree against the insured vessel for its share of the damages suffered by the other vessel was held recoverable uml ordinary policy; Peters v. Ins. Co., 14 Pet. (U. S.) 99. 10 L. Ed. 371. The fact that the libellants in a collision case had received satisfaction from the insurers for the vessel destroyed, furnishes no ground of defence for the respondent; The Monticello v. Mollison, 17 How. (IT. S.) 152, 15 L. Ed. 68. Improper speed on the part of a steamer in a dark night, during thick weath in the crowded thoroughfares of commerce, will render such vessel liable for the damages occasioned by a collision; and It is no excuse for such dangerous speed that the steamer carries the mail and is under contract to convey it at a greater average speed than that complained of; 3 Hags. Adm. 414; Mc Cready v. Goldsmith, 18 How. (TJ. S.) 89. 15 L. Ed, 288; The New York v. Rea, 18 How. (U. S.) 223, 15 L. Ed. 359; Sampson v. United States, 12 Ct. Cls. (U. S.) 4S0; The Manistee, 7 Biss. 35, Fed. Cas. No. 9,028; The Majestic, 48 Fed. 730, 1 C. C. A. 78; Fabre v. Steamship Co., 53 Fed. 288, 3