to keep out of the way, and the speed of the latter was
such that in the existing circumstances she would probably
have passed safely across the former's bows. The Mcmnon
was held in fault for not stopping her engines, although,
had The San Salvador kej^t her course, the risk of collision
would have been increased and not diminished by The
3Ie))inon slackening her speed (/â– ). Where it is possible to
comply with the Regulations, Art. 28 would be no excuse
for departing from them. In a case under the Trinity
E/ules of 1840, it was held that it was no excuse for not
observing the rules that the night was very dark, and that
the other ship was not seen until she was very close (s).
Where two steamships were meeting in the Thames end
on, and one starboarded in order, as was alleged, to clear a
barge, in the absence of proof that the starboarding was
necessary, she was held in fault for a collision with the
other steamship (/). The obligation on a ship which seeks
to justify a departure from the Eegulations is heavy.
She takes upon herself the obligation of showing both
that the departure was necessary in order to avoid imme-
diate danger, and also that the course adopted by her was
reasonably calculated to avoid that danger (w).
The fact that a steam tug had a heavy ship in tow, and
a strong wind and tide against her, was held not to justify
her departing from the rule requiring her to keep out of
the way of an approaching sailing ship {cc). And wliere
a large steamship of 1,356 tons had a disabled steamship
of 1,495 tons in tow, and was fast to the latter by a tow
rope and chain cables of such length that from the bow of
the towing vessel to the stern of the other was nearly a
quarter of a mile, it was held by the Privy Council that
(r) The Memnon, 6 Asp. 317 ; in
Dom. Proc. 62 L. T. N. S. 84.
(«) The Flint, 6 Not. of Gas. 271.
[t) The Concordia and The Esther,
L. R. 1 A. & E. 93.
(;<) 21ie Agra and The Elizabeth
Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501.
[x) The Warrior, L. R. 3 A. & E.
553.
WHEN TO HE DEPARTED FROM.
493
those circumstances did not justify a departure from the ^ ^t. 23.
rule requiring steamships to keep out of the way of a
sailing ship (//) .
Two steamships on crossing courses (within Art. IG),
both making for a pilot cutter, must keep clear of each
other by observing the Eegulations. The fact that they
are both making for the cutter does not justify the steam-
ship with the other on her starboard hand in neglecting to
keep out of the way (;:) .
A sailing ship beating to windward ahead of a steamship
is justified by Art. 23 in going about when she has stood
in towards a sand ahead of her as near as is prudent,
although, except for the danger of going ashore, it would
be her duty to keep her coui'se {a).
It seems that Art. 23 does not justify a departm-e from
the Eegulations on the ground that it was reasonable to
expect that the force of the blow would thereby be di-
minished {b) .
Where a collision may be avoided by obeying the Regu- Convenience
lations, it is not a sufficient excuse for departing from them departinj
that the collision might with equal safety and more con- ^^'^^^ *^®
veniently have been avoided by one or both ships departing
from the Regvdations. Thus, where a steamship sighted
another at a considerable distance, approaching her nearly
end on and a little on her starboard bow, it was held that
the law required her to port, and that she was in fault for
starboarding, although by porting she would have had to
cross the bows of the other ship (c) .
If a ship that is close-hauled must, in order to avoid a A ship close-
((/) The American and The Si/ria, 18o4 ; it is submitted that the de-
L. R. 4 A. & E. 226 ; on appeal, cisiou would have been the same
L. R. 6 P. C. 127. under the existing Regulations.
{z) The Ada V. The Sappho, I AsTp. The observations in The Arthur
Mar. Law Cas. 475. Gordon, Lush. 270, with regard to
{a) The Orwell, supra, p. 477. the duty of a sailing ship to keep
\b) The Khedive, 5 App. Cas. 876. out of the way of a tug and her
(c) The Araxes and The Black tow, upon grounds of convenience,
Fr'uice, 15 Moo. P. C. C. 122. This must be taken with caution.
case was decided under the Act of
mg
he
Regulations.
494
THE REGULATIONS.
Art. 23.
hauled, when
required to
depart from
the Regula-
tions requir-
ing her to
keep her
course, should
luff, if pos-
sible.
Neither ship
may depart
from the
Regulations
on the chance
of the other
obeying them.
Combined
operation of
Art. 19 and
Art. 23.
collision, either luff or bear up, it lias been said tbat the
more prudent course for her is to luff, if possible, " so
as thereby to stop her way ; and mitigate as far as
possible the effects of a collision, if a collision should
take place" {d).
Although the steps which the Eegulations require two
vessels approaching with risk of collision to take are not
necessary, in the sense that a collision would certainly be
avoided by only one of the vessels obeying the Eegula-
tions, the law must be obeyed by both. A vessel depart-
ing from the Eegulations will not be excused on the
ground that the collision would have been avoided if the
other vessel had not disobeyed the law. In such a case
Art. 23 is no justification for either ship in departing from
the Eegulations. Thus, where two steamships were meeting
end on, and a collision would not have occurred if either
had put her helm to port, both were held in fault by the
Supreme Coui't of the United States {e).
It remains to be decided what effect Art. 19 has upon
the application of Art. 23. In America, where a " whist-
ling" rule similar to that of Art. 19 has been in force for
many years, it has been held that a steamship signalling to
another that she intends to depart from the Eegulations,
and departing from them, is not in fault for such a depar-
ture if it was agreed to by the answering signal from the
other ship. But strict proof was required that the assent-
ing signal was given (_/).
It would probably be held that where a ship is hailed by
another to take a particular coui'se, if she does so and a
collision occurs, the latter could not be heard to say that
the former was wrong for departing from the Eegula-
tions {g).
{d) The Agra and The Elizabeth
Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501.
(e) The America, 2 Otto, 432.
(/) The Milwaukee, 1 Brown,
Adm. 313.
{(/) See above," p. 6, and cases
there cited. Art. 28 of the Wash-
ington Regulations makes the helm
signals compulsory.
ORDINARY PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN. 495
No ship, u)idor (ni// circuits fa iicr-s, to )tegl<'ct j^roper precautious.
Article 24 (A).
Nothiitfi ill these rules .shall exonerate an// ship, or the Art. 24.
oicner, or niasfcr, or erric thereof, from the consequences of Besides
(1)11/ nrqlect to earn/ liiihts or si(iiiah, or of am/ neqlect to 2j'-^t'''yin8' the
•^ ./ .' ./ 1 . .1 J Regulations,
keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of a)ii/ precaution proper pre-
n-hich may he required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or to be'taken'in
by the special circumstances of the case. ^^ cases.
This Article is identical with Art. 20 of the Regulations
of 1863, and with Art. 24 of the Regulations of 1880. It
seems difficult to attribute to it an}' legal effect. It was
inserted in the Regulations, probably, ex abundante cauteld,
and as a declaration, not to be overlooked by seamen, of
the legal consequences of negligence.
The omission by a vessel preparing to anchor to warn a
ship astern of her position and intention was held neglect
of a " precaution requii-ed by the special cii'cumstances of
the case" (?).
The duty of those in charge of a ship to navigate lier
with due regard to the ordinary rules of seamanship, and
under special circumstances to depart from the Regula-
tions, has been already referred to (/.). What is required Precautions
of seamen is ordinary skill and ordinary intelligence, the^ordinary
Neither Aii. 24, nor any other part of the liegulations, practice of
makes it their duty to foresee and jDrovide against every have been
accident. But where literal compliance with the Re^ula- Recognised by
. . the law.
tions is not enough to avoid a collision, all must be done
that a seaman of ordinary skill and intelligence would do
to keep clear of the other ship (/). Where, for example, an
[h) Corresponding to Art. 29 of (/.•) See pp. 2, 213, 480, s^.?., above,
the Washington liegulations. (/) The Jci<inond and 'The Earl of
(t) The Thilutaxc, 3 Asp Mar. Ehjiu, L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; The City
Law Cas. 512. As to the duty of of Antiverp ?inA. The Fritdrich, In-
a ship in such a case, see iiifni, p. tuan v. Beck, L. R. 2 P. C. 25.
503.
496 THE REGULATIONS.
Art. 24. alteration of the helm is not enough, the helm must be
assisted by lowering the peak or letting go the fore-
sheets (;yO- So, a vessel has been held in fault for not
backing her yards (/;).
The law as to what is proper care and skill in naviga-
tion, and what are precautions required by the ordinary
practice of seamen, is illustrated by numerous decisions,
some of which are here collected.
Look-out. First, as to look-out : If a ship is proved to have been
negligent in not keeping a proper look-out she will be held
answerable for all the reasonable consequences of her
negligence. In an American case, where the look-out on
board a schooner failed to report a steamer's light which
could not be seen by the man at the wheel, the schooner
was held partly in fault for the collision (o) .
The look-out must be vigilant and sufficient according
to the exigencies of the case. The denser the fog and the
worse the weather the greater the cause for vigilance. A
ship cannot be heard to say that a look-out was of no use
because the weather was so thick that another ship could
not be seen until actually in collision. In The MeUona{p),
Dr. Lushington said : — " It is no excuse to urge that from
the intensity of the darkness no vigilance, however great,
could have enabled Tlie Mdlo)ia to have descried The
George in time to avoid a collision. In proportion to the
greatness of the necessity, the greater ought to have been
the care and vigilance employed."
In ordinary cases one or more hands should be specially
stationed on the look-out by day as well as at night. They
should not be engaged upon any other duty ; and they
should be stationed in the bows, or in that part of the
ship from which other vessels can best be seen [q). On
{m) The Lady Anne, 15 Jur. 18 ; 117.
The Stranger, 6 Not. of Cas. 36, («) The James, Swab. Ad. 55.
38; The Marpcsia, L. R 4 P. C. {o) The Famta, 14 Blatchf. 545.
212 ; The Ulster, 1 Mar. Law Cas. {p) 3 W. Rob. 7, 13.
O. S. 234 ; The Zadolc, 9 P.I). 114, (y) The Diana, 1 W. Rob. 131 ;
i,ooK-ouT, 497
board a Mersey ferry Lout the proper place iur the look- Art. 24.
out was said to be on the bridge between the paddle
boxes (r). When passing over a fishing ground a specially
vigilant look-out must be kept to avoid fishing-boats («).
A vessel brought up in a frequented channel should have Anchor
an anchor watch ready to sheer her clear of an approach- ^^ ^
ing vessel, or to give her chain (i*). For a large steam-
ship going eleven knots off Dungeness, a crowded part of
the Euglish Channel, on a hazy night, the Privy Council
considered that one hand on the look-out was not suffi-
cient (k). It was held negligence that an anchor watch
was not kept on board a shiji at moorings in the river
Tyne, the weather being bad and threatening {.v).
On board a steamship in daylight in the Clyde, the
pilot, an officer, and a hand (not properly qualified for the
duty), were held to be a sufficient look-out (//).
The necessity in the Thames of a look-out on the fore-
castle head, to see craft low in the water under the ship's
bows, was insisted upon in T/ie Uallett (2).
Under the Regulations of 1863 it was held that a vessel Look-out
was not necessarily in fault for not keeping a look-out ^^^^^'
astern on a clear night ; although if she sees a vessel
approaching her astern it is her duty to warn her of her
4 Moo. P. C. C. 11 ; The Batavier, Enquiry, suspending a master's
9 Moo. P. C. C. 286 ; The Bold certificate for not having set two
Buccltugh, 1 Pr. Adm. Dig. 144; men on the look-out when running
The Glannibanta, 1 P. D. 283 ; The through a roadstead, the judges of
Belgenland, 6 Davis, 355 ; see The the Admiralty Division said that
Morning Light, 1 Wall. 550. there was nothing in the ch-cura-
(r) The Wirral, 3 W. Rob. 56. stances of the case to require more
(s) The Robert and Ann v. The than one man on the look-out; and
Lloi/ds, Holt, 55. they reversed the decision of the
(/) See Lack v. Seward, 4 Car. & Court of Enquiry. The Man/ and
P. 106; Vaudei-plank v. Miller, M. The Rowland, Adm. Ct., 11th July,
& M. 169; and The Masters and 1881; cited in Murton's Wreck
The Rai/nor, Brown, Adm. 342 ; Enquiries, p. 196.
The Marcia Trihou, 2 Sprague, 17 {x) The Fladda, 2 P. D. 34.
(American cases). (y) Clgdc Navigation Co. v. Bar-
(«) The Germania, 3 Mar. Law clag, 1 App. Cas. 790, 798.
Cas. 0. S. 269. In an appeal (c) Ad. Div. 9th August, 1887.
from the judgment of a Court of
M. K K
498 THE REGULATIONS.
Art. 24. danger (cO- In America a vessel wliioli damaged another
by moving her propeller in dock was held in fault for not
having a look-out astern (b). Under the existing Regu-
lations a vessel omitting to show the stern light required
by Art. 11 would probably be held in fault (r).
It is the duty of a ship with another in tow to keep an
especially vigilant look-out, because the tow cannot always
see ahead {d ) .
A vessel brought up under Delaware Breakwater was
(in America) held solely in fault for a collision with a
ship coming in for shelter. She had no watch on deck,
and it was proved that, if there had been one, the collision
might have been avoided. Apart from the collision itself,
there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the
vessel under way ; and there was a heavy snow storm
about the time she came in (e).
The obligation of keeping a sharper look-out than is
ordinarily required by law may be cast upon a ship by a
local rule of navigation. In the Thames, for example, a
local rule of navigation requires a vessel, before roun ding-
certain points, to ascertain whether there is any vessel
approaching her in the opposite direction on the other side
of the point (/).
Where a vessel in a river ran into another coming out
of dock, it was held that the duty of the look-out was to
see that the channel was clear ; and that it was not negli-
gence on his part not to have reported the vessel coming
out of dock {{/).
Where to keep a good look-out glasses are necessary, it
would probably be held negligence not to use them (/?).
(a) The Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 A. (e) The Clara, 12 Otto, 200.
& E. 431 ; The City of Brooklyn, (/) The Margaret, 9 App. Cas.
1 P. D. 276. 873, 879.
(b) The Nevada, 16 Otto, 154. {g) The Calabar, L. R. 2 P. C.
(c) Supra, p. 391. 238.
{d) The Jane Bacon, 27 W. E. {h) See The Hibcrnia, 2 Asp.
35. Mar. Law Cas. 454.
LOOK-OUT. 499
In an American case the use of a nig]it-gla?8 on board a Art. 24.
steamer coming iuto harbour was held to be necessary (i).
Tlio requirements of the law in America as to look-out American
have been stated in many cases in stringent terms. In look-out.
T/ie Sunni/side (J) the Supreme Court held that it is the
duty of a sailing ship to watch the movements of an
approaching steamship, in order that, if the steamship fails
to comi)ly with the law and keep out of the way, she may
herself be able to avoid a collision.
In another case it was held that the absence of a look-
out on board a vessel will cause her to be held in fault for
a collision, unless it is proved that the other ship was seen
as soon as it was possible to see her, and that the proper
steps to avoid her were taken, and as soon as it was possible
to take them (/.•).
The Supreme Court has held that the officer in charge
of the deck is not a sufficient look-out. For a first-class
ocean steamship two men with no other duty to perform
constitute a proper look-out. They should be stationed
forward in the ship's bows (/), or in the part of the ship
from which other vessels can best be seen (m). The rule
that there must be one or more men specially stationed on
the look-out, and that the officer in charge or the man at
the wheel is not sufficient, has been established by numerous
cases («).
In The Ariadne (o) the Supreme Court said that the
rigour of the requii-ement as to an efficient look-out rises
according to the speed and power of the vessel, and the
chance of meeting other ships. Thus, a vessel entering a
((■) T/ic rule Du Havre, 7 Bened. (;«) The Morning Light, 2 Wall.
328. 650.
U) 1 Otto, 208. Cp. The Mani- («) The Northern Indiana, 3
toba (a case of two steumsliips), 15 Blatclif . 92 ; The Comet, 9 Bhitchf.
Davis, 97, supra, p. 444. 323; The Parkershurg, 5 Blatclif.
{k) The Atlas, 10 Blatclif. 459. 247 ; The Douglas, Brown, Ad. 105 ;
(/) Chamberlainy.Jf'ard, 21 llovi^. The Nabob, ibid, lib \ The Blossom
548, 570. Olcott, 188.
(o) 13 Wall. 475.
K K 2
500
THE KEGULATIONS.
â– ^^t- 24. liarbour at niglit should have all the crew on deck, and
keep as sharp a look-out as is possible ( p).
It has been held by the Supreme Coiu't that the absence
of a look-out was not excused by the fact that it was day-
time ; that all hands were engaged in reefing (q) ; or that
they were rej)aii'ing damage caused by an accident (/•).
The duty of ferry boats, and of vessels crossing the track
of ferry boats, to keej) a specially good look-out, has been
insisted upon in many cases («).
Sufficiency of A vessel Under way must have on board a sufficient crew
to work her for the voyage on which she is engaged. It
seems that the crew usual under the particular circum-
stances would be held to be sufficient. Thus, two hands
have been held sufficient for a sailing barge in the Thames (f) .
When in dock or harbour she should be provided with
sufficient hands to tend her, having regard to her position,
the character of the dock or harbour, and to ordinary
changes of the weather (w). A steamer having been found
to blame for damaging with her propeller a barge that
was properly moored astern of her, the barge was held
also to blame for having no one on board : but for this
omission the barge might at any rate have been beached,
and the damage consequent on the collision diminished (x).
Where a new ship was in collision on her trial trip, when
she had not on board her full complement of officers and
crew, she was not therefore held in fault, there being on
board a sufficient crew to work her (y) . It is negligence
for the officer of a sliip at moorings in a river to be ashore
unnecessarily when the weather is bad and threatening (s) .
(p) The Scioto, Davies, 359. supra, p. 407.
[q] Catharine v. Dickinson, 17 (t) The Minna, L. E,. 2 A. & E.
How. 170 ; Thorp v. Hammond, 12 97.
Wall. 408 ; see also The H. P. \u) The Excelsior, L. K. 2 A. &
Baldivin, Brown. Adin. 300. E. 208 ; The Fa'riotto and The
(r) Whitridge v. Dill, 23 How. Pdral, 2 L. T. N. S. 301.
448. (.«•) The Scotia, 63 L. T. N. S. 324.
(*) The America, 10 Blatchf. (y) The C'bjde Navigation Co. v.
1.55 ; Ince v. East Boston Ferry Co., Barclay, 1 App. Cas. 790.
106 Massach. Eep. 149 ; and see {z) The Kepler, 2 P. D. 40.
SUFFICIENCY OF C]iFAV — liRIXr.lNT: UP.
501
Tlie officor ill charge sliould Lo always on deck (a) ; he ^^^- 2*.
should not leave the deck in charge of a junior oificer
when another vessel is approaching, so as to involve risk
of collision (/>). In the case of a collision between sailing
smacks, it beinjr admitted that one of them was in fault,
the other was held to be also in fault for not having more
than one hand on deck, it being the opinion of the Elder
Brethren tliat had there been two hands on deck the colli-
sion might have been avoided (r). In a fog there should
be strength at the helm suflicient to alter the ship's course
as quickly as possible on the order being given (d).
A vessel under way is bound to keep clear of another at Keepinpr clear
anchor. The rule seems to be the same m all cases where anchor,
one of the ships is under way and the other, though not at
anchor, is for any other reason unable to keep out of the
way ; as where she is fishing and fast to her nets, or in
stays, or disabled (e). And it applies though the ship at
anchor is brought up in the fair- way, or elsewhere in an
improper berth. " It is the bounden duty of a vessel under
way, whether the vessel at anchor be properly or impro-
perly anchored, to avoid, if it be possible with safety to
herself, any collision whatever" (/). If one ship is fast
to the shore, or lying at established moorings, it can
scarcely happen that the other w^ould not be held in fault
for the collision {(/). Where a steamship in the daytime
ran into a sailing ship brought up in a river 500 yards
wide, it was held by an American Court that the steam-
(a) The Arthur Gordon and The
Independence, Lush. 270.
(b) The Khedive atid The Toor-
u-aarts, 5 App. Cas. 876.
(r) The General Gordon, G3 L. T.
N. S. 117.
(d) The Europa, 14 Jur. 627.
{e) See above, p. 31.
(/) Per Dr. Lushiii<rton in The
Batarier, 1 W. Rob. 107 ; and see
The Dura, 1 Priteh. Adm. Dig:.
174 ; ThcMareia Tribuii, 2 Sprag'iie,
17 ; but see The Kjobenhavn, 2 Asp.
Mar. Law Cas. 213.
(</) Sec The Secret, 26 L. T. N. S.
670 ; and (American cases) I'ulbert-
sun V. Share, 18 How. 584 ; Porte-
rant v. The Bella Donna, Newb.
Adm. 510 ; The Bridgeport, 7
Bhatchf. 361; 14 Wall. 116; The
Granite State, 3 Wall. 310 ; The
Helen Cooper and The It. L. Mabey,
7 Blatchf. 378.
502 THE REGULATIONS.
Art. "4. ship was solely in fault, although tlie sailing ship was
riding with her sails up, sheering about, and with no
anchor watch {h) .
A vessel hove-to is, it seems, under way, and is required
to comply with the Regulations so far as she is able {i) .
She is, therefore, not justified in doing nothing, and rely-
ing upon the other to keep out of her way.
Ship at an- The following cases illustrate the requirements of the
up, or srettiug law as to the duty of a ship when coming to an anchor,
under way. -^lien brought up, and when getting under way : —
Foul berth. A ship in bringing up must not give another a foul
berth. " If one vessel anchors there, and another here,
there should be that space left for swinging to the anchor
that in ordinary circumstances the two vessels cannot come
together. If that space is not left, I apprehend it is a foul
berth" (/:). In an American case it was held that a ship
at anchor is entitled to have room to swing, not only with
the scope of cable which she has out at the time when the
other ship takes up her berth, but with as long a scope as
may be necessary to enable her to ride in safety (/).
If a ship gives another a foul berth she cannot require
the latter to take extraordinary precautions to avoid a col-
lision {))i). It has been held that in the Mersey a cable's
length between the two ships is a clear berth (;/). This,
however, cannot be laid doAvn as a general rule, for at this
distance a laden vessel riding to the tide might, in swing-
ing, come dangerously close to a light vessel riding athwart
the tide. And not only must a vessel not bring up so close
to another as not to give her room to swing, but she must
not bring up in such a place that she endangers the other
ship. She should not bring uj) directly ahead, or in the
(h) The Planet, Brown, Adm. (l) The Queen of the East and The
124. Calypso, 4 Bened. 103.
(i) The Eosalie, 5 P. D. 245, (w) The Vivid, 1 Asp. Mar. Law
supra, p. 41-5. Ca.s. 601.
{k) I'cr Dr. Lushington in The [n) The Frinceton, 3 P. D. 90.
Northampton, 1 Spinks, 152, 160.
BRINGING UP — FOUI, BERTH. 503
stream of another ship, having regard to the current and Art. 24.
also to prevailing winds. If she brings up directly in the
hawse of another ship, or elsewhere in the neighboui'hood
of another ship, there should be such a distance between
them that if either of them drives or parts from her anchors
she may liave tlie opportunity to keep clear (o). AVhere a
sliip, in bad weather, took up a berth two cables' length to
windward of another, in an anchorage where there was
plenty of room, and then rode with only one anchor down