" Uncas," The, and The " Maeander," Holt, 243 . . ; 473
" Undaunted," The, 11 P. D. 46 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 24 ; 54 L. T. N. S.
542 ; 34 W. R. 680 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 580 200
" Underwriter," The. See The "Lake St. Clair" and The "Under-
writer."
" Union," The, 3 L. T. N. S. 280 84, 215
• Steamship Co. v. Owners of The " Aracan." See
The " American " and The " Syria."
"United Service," The, 8 P. D. 56 ; 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 55 ; 52
L. J. Ad. 18 ; 48 L. T. N. S. 486 ; 31 W. R. 614 ; on app. 9 P. D.
3 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 32 W. R. 505 ; 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 170 ;
49 L. T. N. S. 701 200, 205, 524
" United States," The, 2 How. 210 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 166 ; 12
L. T. N. S. 33 77, 93, 522
. 12L. T. N. S. 33 i 136
" Unity," The, Swab. Ad. 101 339, 357, 463, 464
" Urania," The, 1 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 156 ; 5 L. T. N. S. 402 ; 10
W. R. 97 316
Usher v. Lyon, 2 Price, 118 268
V.
Vadala v. Lawes, 25 Q. B. D. 310 ; 62 L. T.'IST. S. 701 ; 63 L. T.
N. S. 128 ; 38 W. R. 594 225
" Valleyo," The, Ad. Div. 27th April, 1887 62
" Vanderbilt," The, 6 Wall. 225 ' 356, 466
TAIil.K ()!•' CASES. Ivii
TAOE
Vaudcrplauk v. Miller, M. & M. 1G9 4'j7
" Vatidyk," The, 7 P. D. 42 ; 5 Asp.* M. L. C. 17 ; 17 L. T. N. S.
694 ....• 301, 302
"Velasquez," The, Owners of The " Velasquez " v. Briggs, L. R. 1
P. C. 494 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 19 : 16 L. T. N. S. 777 ; 16 W. R. 89 . . 238, 246
" Velocity," The, L. R. 3 P. C." 44 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 21 L. T. N. S.
686 ; 18 W. R. 204 312. 343, 353, 3.}7, 42o, 427, 46G— 474
Velthasen v. Ormsby, 2 T. R. 315 209
Vennall r. Garner, 1 Cr. & M. 21 , 4
'"Venus," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. (ed. 1887) 1678 ; 2 M. L. C. 0. S.
Dig. 522 26
•' Vera Cruz," The, No. 1 (infrinKcmeut of Regulations^ 9 P. D. 88 ;
53 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 51 L. T. N. S. 24 ; 32 W. R. 783 ; 5 A.sp. M.
L. C. 254 . . . , 134, 144, 223, 318, 328
No. 2 (jurisdiction in rem), 9 P. D. 96 ; 5 Asp.
M. L. C. 270; 53 L. J. 'Ad. 33 ; 51 L. T. N. S. 104 ; (H. L.),
nom. Seward r. The " Vera Cruz," lOAp. Cas. 59; 54 L. J. Ad.
9 ; 52 L. T. N. S. 474 ; 33 W. R. 477 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 386 . .22, 43,
45, 4G, 58, 63, 65, 144, 214, 223, 318
â– " Vernon," The, 1 W. Rob. 316 218, 238
" Vesta," The, "Times," Sept. 15th, 1879 258
. 7 P. D. 240 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 25 ; 46 L. T. N. S. 492 ;
30 W. R. 705 ; 4 Asp. M. L. C. 515 272, 275
"Vesuvius," The, and The " Savemake." See The " Savernake."
" Vianna," The, Swab..Ad. 405 521
" Vicksburg," The, 7 Blatchf. 216 512
" Victor," The, Lush. 72 ; 29 L. J. Ad. 110 ; 2 L. T. N. S. 331 ... . 81,
87, 319
" Victor Covaceviteh," The, 10 P. D. 40 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 48 ; 52 L. T.
N. S. 632 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 417 312
"Victoria," The, 3 W. Rob. 49 360, 362. 402, 404
Ir. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 336 261, 275
No. 1 (damage to cargo). 12 P. D. 105 ; 56 L. J. Ad.
75; 56 L. T. N. S. 499; 35 W. R. 291; 6 Asp. M. L. C.
120 82, 85
No. 2 (life claimants), 13 P. D. 125 ; 57 L. J. Ad.
103 ; 59 L. T. N. S. 728 ; 37 W. R. 62 ; 6 Asp. M. L. C. 376 . , ISO
. and The " Keilawarra. " See Australian, &c. Co. v.
Smith.
Victorian Railway Commissioners r. Coultas, 1 3 App. Cas. 222 ; 57
L. J. P. C. 69;'58L. T. N. S. 390 ; 37 W. R. 129 110
" Vildosala," The, 4 Asp-. M. L. C. 228 ; 42 L. T. N. S. 96 314
" Villc du Havre," The, 7 Beued. 328 \ 499
" Vindomora," The, 14 P. D. 172 : 59 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 60 (7^ 1 ; 61 L.
T. N. S. 655 ; 63 ib. 749 ; 38 W. R. 69 ; 6 Asp. M. L. C. 438 ;
W. N. 1890, 212 ^ 353, 403
Violet V. Blague, Cro. Jac. 514 209
"Virgil," The, 2 W. Rob. 201 8
" Virginia Ehnuan," The, 7 Otto, 309 197. 286
" Virgo." The, 3 Asp. M. C. 285 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 519 : 25 W. R. 397. . 11. 24
7 Bencd. 495 479
.M. e
Iviii TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
" Vivar," The, 2 P. D. 29 ; 35 L. T. N. S. 782 ; 3 Asp. M. L. C.
308 ; 25 W. R. 379 ; ou app. ibid. 453 209, 304
" Vivid," The, Swab. Ad. 88 ; on app. uom. Churchward v. Palmer,
10 Moo. P. C. C. 472 ; 4 W. R. 755 39, 401
7 Not. of Cas. 127 406, 434, 472
• 1 A.sp. M. L. C. 601 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 28 L. T. N. S.
375 502, 503, 507
"Volant," The, 1 W. Rob. 383; 1 Not. of Cas. 503. .. .87, 162,172,210
Br. & L. 321 319
" Volcano," The, 2 W. Rob. 337 102, 503, 605
" Voorwaarts," The, and The "Khedive," Stoomvaart, Sec. Co. v.
Peninsular, &c. Co. (infringement of Regulations), 5 App. Cas. 876 ;
43 L. T. N. S. 610 ; 29 W. R. 173 ; 4 Asp. M. L. C. 360 ... . 3, 4, 19,
41_54, 63, 72, 342—349, 437—450, 480—484, 490, 493, 501
"Voorwaarts," The, and The "Khedive," Stoomvaart, &c. Co. v.
Peninsular, &c. Co. (division of loss), 7 App. Cas. 795 ; 52 L. J.
Ad. 1 ; 47 L. T. N. S. 198 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 360, 567 65, 94,
133—144, 162, 179, 217, 292
" Vortigem," The, Swa. 518 306
" Vrou Janetze," The, Ad. Ct. 2nd Feb. 1820 156
W.
" W. A. Scholten," The, 13 P. D. 8 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 4 ; 58 L. T. N. S.
91 ; 36 W. R. 559 ; 6 Asp. M. L. C. 244 304
" TV. C. Redfield," The, 4 Bened. 227 430, 512
" W. T. Clark," The, 5 Bissel, 295 86
Wahlberg v. Young, 4 Asp. M. L. C. 27 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 783 ; 24
W. R. 847 176, 204, 321
Wakelin v. London & South Western Ry. Co., 12 App. Cas. 41 ; 56
L. J. Q. B. 229 ; 55 L. T. N. S. 709 ; 35 W. R. 141 22, 30
Walker v. Maitland, 5 B. & A. 171 289
Waltham v. Mulgar, Moo. 776 70, 93, 212
" Wanata," The, 4 Bened. 310 ; 5 Otto, 600 177, 380
"Wansfell," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 271 40
"War Eagle," The, 6 Bissel, 364 183
" Warkworth," The, 9 P. D. 20 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 4 ; 32 W. R. 479 ;
49 L. T. N. S. 715 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 194 ; on app. 9 P. D. 145 ;
53 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 33 W. R. 112 ; 51 L. T. N. S. 558 ; 5 Asp. M.
L. C. 326 11, 24, 169, 172, 175—177, 181, 242, 321, 337
" Warrior," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 553 ; 27 L. T. N. S. 101 ; 21 W.
R. 82 185, 360, 432, 492
"Warwick," The, 15 P. D. 189 ; 63 L. T. N. S. 561 326
" Washington," The, 5 Jur. 1067 134, 135, 139, 328
"Wasp," The, L. R. 1 A. & E. 367 ; 16 L. T. N. S. 854 ; 2 M. L.
C. 0. S. 552 88
" Waterloo," The, 2 Dods. Ad. 433 91
Wayde v. Lady Carr, 2 Dow. & R. 255 466
"Webb," The, 14 Wall. 406 198, 206
Webster r. Manchester, Sheffield, &c. Ry. Co., W. N. (1884) 1 .... 306
TABLE OF CASES. Hx
PAGE
Wells V. Osmond, 2 Raym. 1011 92
" Wenoua," The, 19 Wall. 41 3^52
" Wesley," The, Lush. 26H 272
•' Westphalia," The, 4 Bened. 404 ; 1 Asp. M. L. C. 12 ; 24 L. T.
N. S. 7o 406
"Wexford," The, 13 P. D. 10 ; 57 L. J. Ad. G ; o8 L. T. N. S. 28 ;
3G W. R. 560 ; 6 Asp. M. L. C. 244 116
" Wlieatshcaf," The, and The " Intrepide," 2 Mar. L. C. O. S. 292 ;
licit, 210; 13L. T. N. S. 612 27, 85, 457
White V. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312 26,96
V. Dubinson, 14 Sim. 373 293
V. Phillips, 15 C. B. N. S. 245 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 10 Jur.
N. S. 425 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 388 96
Whitehall Transportation Co. v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 51 New
York (Sicker' s) Rep. 369 64
Whitney v. The Empire State, 1 Bened. 57 HI, 477, 511, 512
V/hitrid.c-c r. Dill, 23 How. 448 4C0, 500
"Wild Ranger," The, Lush. 553 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 7 L. T. N. S.
725 ; 9 Jut. N. S. 134 162, 219
" Wilhelraina," The. See The " Willi amina."
Wilkins r. Day, 12 Q. B. D. 110; 49 L. T. N. S. 399 ; 32W. R. 123.. 36
" Willard Saulsbury," The, 1 Pars, on Ship. (cd. 1869) 564 379
" Willem III.," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 487 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 386 ... . 89
" WilUam," The, 4 Quebec L. R. 306 197
6 C. Rob. 316 257
' ' William Frederick, ' ' The. See The ' ' Byfoged Christcnsen."
" William Hutt," The, Lush. 25 311, 314
â– 4 Mitch. Mar. Reg. 718 ; Lowndes on Coll.
187 525
" William Money," The, 2 Hag. 136 88
" William Lindsay," The, L. R. 5 P. C. 338 ; 29 L. T. N. S. 355 ; 22
W. R. 6 ; 2 Asp. M. L. C. 118 10, 24, 102, 505
" Williamina," The, 3 P. D. 97 119, 333
Williams v. Newton, 14 M. & W. 747 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 1 1 272
Willoughby v. Horridge, 12 C. B. 742 106
Wilson V. Canada Shipping Co. See The "Lake St. Clair " and The
"Underwriter"
Wilson v. Dickson, 2 B. & Aid. 2 162, 166, 172
V. Merry, L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. 326 109
r. Newport Dock Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 177 114, 121
Wilson Sons r. Owners of Cargoes; "Xantho," 11 P. D. 170; 12
App. Ca. 503 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 56 ib. 116 ; 55 L. T. N. S. 203 ;
57 ib. 701 : 35 W. R. 23 ; 36 ib. 353 ; 6 Asp. M. L. C. 9, 207. . . . 283
" Winston," The, 8 P. D. 176 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 72 ; 49 L. T. N. S.
403 ; 31 W. R. 892 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 143 ; on app. 9 P. D. 85 ;
51 L. T. N. S. 183 : 53 L. J. Ad. 69 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 274. .237, 239,
244, 2i!2, 263, 331
" Wirrall," The, 3 W. Rob. 56 -197
Ix 'JABLE ()!•' CASES.
PAGB
" 'Wobtim Abbev," The, 3 Mar. Law Gas. 0. S. 210 ; 38 L. J. Ad.
28 ; 20 L. T. isr. S. 621 234, 506
Wood V. Smith. See The " City of Cambridge."
Woodley v. Miehell, 11 Q. B. D. 47 ; 5 Asp. Mar Law Cas. 71 ; 48
L. T. N. S. 599 ; 31 W. R. 651 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 325 283, 286
" Woodrop Sims," The, 2 Dods. Ad. 83 125, 136, 153, 156, 157
Wordsworth v. AVillan, 4 Esp. 273 466
Wright V. Lethbridge, 63 L. T. N. S. 572 100, 102
X.
" Xantho," The. See Wilson Sons v. Owners of Cargo ex Xantbo.
Xenos r. Fox, L. R. 4 C. P. 665 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 351 ; 19 L. T. N. S.
84 ; 17 W. R. 893 291
Y.
Tates V. Hall, 1 T. R. 75 165
V. Whyte, 4 Bing. K C. 272 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 116 .... 123, 293, 295
" Yorkshiremau," The, 2 Hag. Ad. 30 (note) 118
'» Young Mechanic," 2 Curtis, 404 80
" Yourri," The, and The "Spearman," 10 App. Ca. 276 ; 53 L. T.
N. S. 29 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 458 463
Z.
"Zadok," The, 9 P. D. 114; 50 L. T. N. S. 69 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 72 ;
32 W. R. 1003 ; 50 L. T. N. S. 695 ; 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 252. .32,
33, 399, 405, 433, 487, 496
"Zephyr," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 146; 11 L. T. N. S. 351 ;
12 W. R. 890 317, 318
" Zoe," The, 11 P. D. 72 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 52 ; 54 L. T. N. S. 879 ; 35
W. R. 61 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. 583 178, 180
" ZoUverein," The, Swab. Ad. 96 ; 27 L. T. 160 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 429 . .215,
217, 516
Cases decided hy Courts of the United States of America arc cited from the
following Reports: —
Abbot, Admiralty (District Court) Reports.
American Eepoets (all the Courts of last resort).
Benedict, District Court Reports.
Blatchfoed, Circuit Court Reports.
Beown, Acbniralty Reports.
Davis, Supreme Court Reports.
Gallison, Circuit Court Reports.
HowAED, Supreme Court Reports.
Newbeeey, Admiralty (District Court) Reports.
Olcott, Admiralty (District Court) Reports."
Otto, Supreme Coiu-t Reports.
Speague, Admiralty (District Court) Reports.
Waee, District Court Repurts.
Wallace, Supreme Court Reports.
Waixace, Junior. Circuit Court Reports.
THE LAW
OP
COLLISIONS AT SEA,
CHAPTER L
^'EGLIGENCE.
The mere fact that a .ship strikes or goes foul of and Collision
iniures another creates no liability in herself, her owners, ^^ii'i^ii^o^
"D^'r?^
or those in charge of her. The assertion that one ship creates no
" ran into " or " ran down " the other, often made in
collision actions by witnesses on both sides, is a mere
allegation of negligence, and in no way advances the
case [a). So that damages may be recovered, negligence
for which the owners or persons in charge of the ship sued
are responsible must be proved. There is one case, but
one case only, in which damages may be recovered without
proof of negligence ; the case, namely, of un infringement
by the defendant ship of one of the Statutory Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea which might by possi-
bility have contributed to the collision. Here a rule of
law {b) requires that the ship which has broken the law
shall be deemed to be in fault for the collision. It excludes
evidence directed to show that the infringement did not in
fact contribute to the collision, and renders the consideration
(rt) The James Watt, 2 W. Rob. (A) 35 & 36 Vict. c. 85, ». 17;
see infra, pp. 38, .sry.
M.
NEGLIGENCE.
Case of in-
scrutable
fault.
What is
netcli^ence.
of tlie question of actual negligence unnecessar3^ The
precise effect of this important enactment will be considered
liereaf ter (c) .
Where a ship, or each of the two ships, alleges (r/) negli-
gence on the part of the other, and it is manifest that
the collision was caused by fault somewhere, but the
evidence does not satisfy the Coiu-t on which side the
fault lies, no damages can be recovered, and each ship
bears her own loss(r). The English law as to the inci-
dence of loss in this case differs from that of some foreign
countries, and also, it seems, from the general maritime
law(/).
In TJie A/bcrf Edu-(ir(]{(j), an action against a steamship
for damage to a mooring dolphin, which fell over on
being struck or pressed upon by the ship, was dismissed
with costs, on tlie ground that mere contact with the
dolphin did not constitute a cause of action, and that the
damage to the dolphin was the result of its own weakness,
and was not caused by any negligence on the part of the
ship.
Negligence is the failure to exercise that skill care and
nerve which are ordinarily to be found in a competent
seaman. "We are not to expect extraordinary skill or
(c) Infra, pp. 38, seq.
(d) Following a practice which
is almost universal, the write" here
and subsequently personifies the
ship. Convenience and habit will,
perhaps, be considered a sufficient
ex'usc for the use of a phraseolotry
which has sometimes proved mis-
leading ; see infra, p. 7o.
{>â– ) The Mani of Jnklnnd, 6 Not.
of r!;)s. 240 ; The Cathrriiw of Dover,
2 Hag. Ad. Ho; The Laconia, 2
Moo. P. C. C. N. S. IGl ; Abbott
on Shipping, r2th ed. 520 ; and see
per Lord Wenslevdale, Morgan v.
Sim, The London,' U Moo. P. C. C.
307, 312. But formerly the law
was otherwise ; see infta, p. 152.
(/) See Bell's Commentaries on
the Law of Scotland (ed. 1870, by
McLaren). I. 627 ; Bynkershoek,
Qufe.st. Jur. Priv. C. 4, o. 18 ;
Pothier, vol. 4, p. 444. There is
no express authority for this state-
ment as tu the pecidiarity of Eng-
li.'^h law, and there are early de-
cisions to the contrary ; see infra,
p. 145. But no case is to be found
in the books in which damages
have bef^n recovered in a case of
inscrutable fault, or in any case
in wdiich negligence has not been
proved against the other ship. As
to the Roman and foreign law on
the point, see infra, p. 68, and the
note at the foot of Chapter VI.
1» 44 L. J. Ad. 49.
OUDINAUV CARE KEQl IRKD. 'i
extraordinary diligence, Lut that degree of skill, and that
degree of diligence, which is generally to ho found in
persons who discharge their duty " (//). In T/tc Dundee (/)
Lord Stowell defined negligence as " a want of that atten-
tion and vigilance which is due to the security of other
vessels that are navigating the same seas, and which, if so
far neglected as to become, however unintentionally, the
cause of damage of any extent to such other vessels, the
maritime law considers as a dereliction of hounden duty,
entitling the sufferer to reparation in damages." In a
recent case before the House of Lords, it was said that the
duty of a seaman is " to take reasonable care and to use
reasonable skill to prevent the ship from doing injury ;"
and it was pointed out that much more skill is reasonably
required from a person who takes charge of a ship than
from one who drives a carriage (/>•) . So in the case of a
collision between a ship being launched and another afloat,
it was said by Butt, J., that under the circumstances the
utmost possible precautions by those in charge of the
launch were no more than reasonable (/).
If a vessel by her own fault makes a collision so imnii- A wrong step
nent that it cannot be avoided except by the extraordinary jitonVoVthe
skill nerve or exertion on the part of the other ship, and a collision is not
collision occiu's, it will be held to have been caused by the ° °
former, and she will be liable for the entire loss. In such
a case, and in every case where a ship by her own negli-
gence places another in sudden and great peril, the latter
will not be held guilty of negligence because at the last
moment she did something that contributed to the collision,
or omitted to do something that might have avoided it (u/).
{h) Per Dr. Lushington, T/ic Voorwaarfs a,n6. The K/iedive, o App.
Thomas Pouw/landT/te Cuba, 2 Mar. Ca. 876, 890. This case is f re-
La \v Cas. 0. S. 344. quently cited in the following pages
(i) 1 Hag. Ad. 120. as I'he J'ooncadrl.s and 7Va' Jvhe-
(k) Per Lord Blackburn, Stooin- dive. See also infra, p. 72.
vaart Maatxhappi/ yitlerland v. JJl- (/) The George lioper, 49 L. T.
rectors, i^-c. of the Peninsular and N. S. 185; 8 Jf. D. 119.
Oriental Steam Xavigation Co., The [m) The Nor, 2 Asp. Mar. Law
b2
NEGLIGENCE.
And the same principle applies in all cases of sudden
and great danger not caused by a man's own negligence.
In such circumstances he is required to exhibit ordinary
presence of mind and ordinary skill ; but it is manifest
that in such a case he may do, or omit to do, something
which may contribute to the collision, without thereby
showing himself deficient in ordinary skill, care, or nerve.
Such an act of omission is held not to be negligence (;?).
Except -where It will, however, be seen hereafter that an arbitrary
statutory pre- ^^^^ ^^ ^^'^ requires the courts to attribute fault to a ship
sumption of ^jj^^ ];^as, evcu Under such circumstances of sudden and
extraordinary peril, infringed one of the Statutory Regu-
lations for preventing collisions that might by possibility
have contributed to the collision, although those on board
have not, in fact, been guilty of any negligent act or
omission (o).
Examples. The following cases illustrate the principle above men-
tioned, that a wrong step taken in the agony of the colli-
sion will not necessarily cause the ship to be held in fault
for the collision.
A sailing ship (/;) in a thick fog sighted another at so
Cas. 264 ; The CM. Palmer and. The
Larnax, infra ; The Fi/riis and The
Smales, Holt, 40 ; The ElizabHh and
The Lotus, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S.
238 ; The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117 ; The
Byivell Castle, 4 P. D. 219 ; The
William Frederick and The Byforjed
Christensen, 4 App. Cas. GG9 ; Tlie
Voorwaarts and The Khedive, 5 App.
Ca. 876. Cf . also Clayards v. T)ethick,
12 Q. B. 439 ; and perl^ovA Ellen-
borough, C..J., in Jones v. Boyce, 1
Stark. 493, 495 : " If I place a man
in such a situation that he must
adopt a perilous alternative (as
jumping off a coach), I am respon-
sible for the consequences." It
has been often held by the Su-
preme Court of the United States
that a vessel which by her own fault
cau.ses sudden peril to another can-
not impute to tlie other as a fault a
measure taken in extremis, although
it was a wrong step, and but for it
the collision would not have oc-
curred. A mistake made in the
agony of the collision is regarded
as an error for which the vessel
causing the peril is altogether re-
sponsible: 1 he Nichols, 7 Wall. 656;
The Carroll, 8 Wall. oOi ; The City
of Paris, 'iW&W. 634; The luetic, 15
Wall. 676 ; The Favorita, 18 Wall.
598; The Falcon, 19WaU. 75; The
Sea Gull, 23 Wall. 165. There are
decisions of the French courts to the
same effect : Abordage Nautique
(Caumont), s.-s. 134.
(w) The Sisters, 1 P. V>. 117;
The Jcsmond and The Earl of Elgin,
L. R. 4 P. C. 1, 7 ; The Mnrpesia,
L. R. 4 P. C. 212 , Vennallx. Gar-
ner, 1 Cr. & M. 21 ; The City of
Antu-erp and The Friedrich, Inman
V. Reek, L. R. 2 P. C. 25.
(«) Infra, p. 48.
\p) The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C.
212.
KX \MPI,KS. O
eliort a distance tliat iu a minute, or less than a minute,
the ships were in collision. Her helm was altered, but the
head-sheets, whieli had just been let go, were not hauled
aft, nor were the lee braces let go, so as to assist her head
in paying off. It Avas held that, even if the collision could
have been avoided by the measures suggested, the time
was so short that there was no negligence in their
omission.
Where a steamship coming up the Thames at night
passed a schooner, and when about 300 yards a-head of
her took the ground and stopped, the schooner was held
not to be in fault for a collision which followed, although
possibly, if she had at once let go her anchor, she might
have prevented the collision (</) .
A steamship bound down the river Thames on a very
dark night was rounding-to in Gravesend Reach before
coming to an anchor. While rounding-to she ran into and
sank a vessel at anchor without a riding light up. The
instant the latter vessel was seen the engines of the steam-
ship were stopped and reversed, but her anchor was not
let go. It was held that, even if the collision could have
been averted by letting go the anchor, the master of the
steamship was not guilty of negligence, because, at the
moment, it did not occur to him to let go his anchor (>•).
But if a ship seeks to excuse herself for taking a wrong
step, which, in fact, caused or contributed to the collision,
upon the ground of sudden peril, she must show clearly that
she was in no way responsible for the sudden peril (.s) .
Upon the same jirinciple, if a ship by carrying wrong Misleading-
lights, or by navigating iu an improper or unusual manner, ilfL^or other
misleads or embarrasses another, she cannot attribute as a embarrassing
fault to the latter any act which was the probable result of
(v) The Klizabeth and The Adaliii, {s) See The Bywell Castle, 4 V. D.
3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 345. 219, and the cases cited above. The
[>â– ) The C. M. Talmer and The 7>rtiiV/.l/wTw, Brown, Ad. 273 ; The
Zaruax, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 94. EUzahelh Jenkins, o Dav. 614
6
NEGLIGENCE.
Both ships
must coTiqily
with the
Regulations.
In ordinary
cases no
discretion as
to complying
with the
Eegulations.
lier own negligence {f) . So wliere a sTiip is hailed from
another to take a particular course, and she obeys the hail,
the other ship cannot be heard to say that the course was
wrong, although, in fact, it caused the collision and was in
violation of the Eegulations {ii).
Where there is risk of collision, and the Statutory
Regulations for preventing collisions require both the
ships to alter their courses, or to take other measures to
avoid collision, it is negligence in either ship not to take
the prescribed step. One of them cannot excuse herself
for disobeying the law upon the ground that there would
have been no collision if the other had obeyed the law.
In such a case she would be prevented from recovering
more than half her loss by 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17 {x) ;
and, independently of the statute, a vessel, which, by
infringing the Regulations, or by negligence in any other
respect, contributes to a collision, is clearly in fault (//) .
Failure to comply with the Regulations is always negli-
gence, and, as will be seen below (;:) , it will in almost
every case be held to be negligence contributing to the
collision.
It is sometimes contended on the part of a ship that has
failed to comply with the Regulations, and is herself in
fault, that the other ship is guilty of contributory negli-
gence for not having departed from the Regulations (c/) .
(t) The Rob Roy, 3 W. Rob. 190 ;
The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170 ; Tlw Mary
Eoimsell, 4 P. D. 204 ; 40 L. T.
N. 8. 368.
{u) See The Caroliis Rotchers, 3
Hag. Ad. 343, note. In this ('ase a
ship close-hauled on the starboard
tack hailed another close-hauled on
the port tack to keep her luff. The
latter did so, and a collision oc-
curred. The first ship was held in
fault. It is submitted that not-
withstanding 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85,
s. 17, the rule would be the same
at the piesent day. It would pro-
bably be held that, after such an
intimation from the other ship of
her intended course, a departure
from the Regulations was necessary
to avoid immediate danger (Art.
23). See also IFihon v. Canada
Shipping Co., 2 App. Ca. 389 ;
2'he Lake 8t. Clair and The Under-
writer, 13 Asp. M. L. C. 361 ; The
James Watt, 2 W. Rob. 270 ; The
Independence, 14 Moo. P. C. C. 103,
109; The Huntress, 2 Sprague, 61.
{x) See below, p. 38.
(//) See Tne America, 2 Otto, 432.
(c) Infra, pp. 42, scq.
[a) The Bijfiiijcd Christensen, 4 App.
Ca. 669. In The Tasmania the
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT.
Such a contention will seldom succeed. It will be seen
below (/;) that a construction has been put upon 36 & 37
Vict, c, 8-5, s. 17, and Aiiiclo 23 of the liegulations, which
takes away all discretion from persons in charge of ships
as to complying or not complying with a llegulation, where
it is possible tliat the collision may be avoided by obeying