I negligent conduct, are as much liable, if death ensues, as those who cause it on a public highway, either by furious driving or negligent conduct "(p). The criminal liability attaches only to those by whose personal misconduct or negligence the collision occurs (7). But where a foreign ship, in charge of an English pilot in the Thames, ran down a boat and drowned a man, and the collision was caused by the man at the helm, a foreigner, not understanding and carrying out the pilot's orders, it was held that the pilot was guilty of manslaughter, if by his own negligence he failed to make his orders understood (r). The master, pilot, or any seaman of a British ship, who wilfully or negligently endangers the life of any person on board such ship, or endangers the ship herself, is guilty of a misdemeanour (s). Malicious injury to a boat used for the guidance of seamen or for purposes of navigation is felony (t). of the regu Where an infringement of the collision regulations Infringement causes damage, the person in charge of the deck is guilty lations. of a misdemeanour (u). Wilful infringement of the regulations by a master or owner is a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprisonment. In case of damage arising from such infringement, the person in charge of the deck is liable to these penalties, unless it is proved that departure from the regulations was necessary (<). And although the master or person in charge of the ship is liable criminally, the owner is answer (p) Per Parke, B., in Reg. v. Taylor, 9 C. & P. 672, 674. (q) Rex v. Allen, 7 C. & P. 153; Rex v. Green, ibid. 156; Reg. v. Barnett, 2 C. & K. 393; Reg. v. Haines, ibid. 368; and see Oakley v. Speedy, 40 L. T. N. S. 881. (r) Reg. v. Spence, 1 Cox, C. C. 352; see London School Board v. Lardner, infra, p. 459. Criminal liability where the ship or is foreign, or the collision able in a civil action for damage caused by his officer's negligence (y). In the case of a collision caused by the criminal fault of a foreigner, or where the collision occurs abroad, if it is the offender sought to punish the offender in this country, questions of difficulty arise as to his liability to the criminal law of occurs abroad. England, and the jurisdiction of our Courts. The liability and jurisdiction depend upon (1) the offender's nationality; (2) the flag of the ship on board which the offence was committed; and (3) the place of collision. The subject does not belong to the present treatise; but it has been the occasion of much discussion as to the limits of municipal and Admiralty jurisdiction. The cases are collected below (2). Officer's certificate may be cancelled. Salvage after collision. If a collision involving loss of life or serious damage to either ship is caused by the wrongful act or default of an officer holding a Board of Trade certificate, his certificate may be cancelled or suspended at a Board of Trade inquiry (a). One of the consequences of negligence causing collision is that the wrong-doer cannot recover salvage remuneration for service rendered to the ship with which he has been in collision, although the latter is also in fault for the collision (b); nor, à fortiori, can he claim salvage against the (y) See Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476, where it was held that wilful infringement of the regulations was not barratry within the meaning of a bill of lading. (z) Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63, 232, seq.; Reg. v. Sattler, D. & B. C. C. 525; Reg. v. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161; Reg. v. Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76; Rex v. Jernot, Russell on Crimes, 5th ed. p. 11, note; Reg. v. Seberg, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 264; Cunningham's Case, Bell's C. C. 220, 234; Reg. v. Menham, 1 F. & F. 369; Reg. v. Lewis, 1 D. & B. C. C. 182. (a) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, ss. 469, 470; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 23. As to the master's liability in respect of his certificate when a pilot is on board, see supra, pp. 276, seq. (b) Cargo ex Capella, L. R. 1 Á. & E. 356, followed in The Castle Rising, Ad. Div. March, 1886; The Ettrick, 6 P. D. 127; and see The Glengaber, L. R. 3 A. & E. 534. The rule is the same in America: The Clarita, 23 Wall. 1; The Sampson, 4 Blatchf. 28; The Charles E. Soper, 19 Fed. Rep. 844. innocent owner of cargo on board her. Nor can a tug recover salvage reward for assistance rendered to a ship with which her tow has been in collision by the fault of herself, the tug (c). An innocent ship may recover salvage for services rendered to another which has negligently run into her. The law which makes it the duty of a ship which has been in collision with another to stand by her, and render assistance, does not prevent her from recovering salvage reward for assistance so given (d). A tug is Salvage for entitled to salvage remuneration from one of two ships in towing ships collision to which she renders assistance by towing the other. other clear (e). And it seems that upon the same principle, a vessel would be entitled to salvage remuneration for holding one ship off another towards which she is driving. A salvor damaged, without negligence on her own part, by collision with the vessel she is assisting, may recover against the latter (ƒ); and a vessel engaged in rendering a salvage service to another does not forfeit her right to salvage by going into collision with the other, even though there was negligence on her part such as to make her liable in damages for the collision (g). Where two vessels were in collision, and entangled together in a position dangerous to both, the propeller of one being foul of the chain cables of the other, a tug which, by towing ahead the vessel at anchor, enabled her to slip from her anchors, and so get clear from the vessel which was foul of her, was held to be entitled to recover salvage reward from both vessels (h). (c) The Glengaber, ubi supra; The Altair, (1897) P. 105. (d) The Retriever and The Queen, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 555. (e) The Vandyck, 7 P. D. 42. (f) The Mud Hopper, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 103. (g) The C. S. Butler and The Baltic, L. R. 4 A. & E. 178. In The Diana, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 366, the owners of a ship which clear of each Tug or salvor with the vessel she is assisting. in collision Collision with tow by fault of tug is breach of towage contract. General average contribution. The fact that some of the owners of a ship that rendered salvage service to another were also owners of the ship whose negligence had done the mischief, and rendered the service necessary, was held not to deprive the salving ship of the right to salvage remuneration (i). Sir R. Philli more said :-"I know of no authority for the proposition that a vessel wholly unconnected with the act of mischief is disentitled to salvage reward simply because she belongs to the same owners as the vessel that has done the mischief." If by the negligence of those on board a tug in the performance of the towage the ship in tow is damaged by collision with a third ship, or damages a third ship, and is compelled to make such damage good, there is a breach of the towage contract, and the tug can recover nothing in respect of the towage service (k). And we have seen (1) that, beyond forfeiting their right to remuneration, the owners of the tug, and the tug herself, are liable to the owners of the tow for the loss. Where a vessel in tow is injured in a collision, and has to stop and repair her damages, the tug is not entitled in a towage action to further remuneration beyond the sum agreed for towage, because she voluntarily stands by whilst the repairs are being effected, and then completes the towage (m). Damage received in a collision by a ship or cargo is not the subject of general average contribution; and this is so whether the ship was in fault for the collision or not. But loss voluntarily incurred for the benefit of all concerned after and in consequence of a collision for which the ship was not in fault (n), and salvage expenses incurred under (i) The Glengaber, L. R. 3 A. & E. 534. (k) The Christina, 3 W. Rob. 27. Semble, aliter where the contract is for salvage service: The C. S. Butler, L. R. 4 A. & E. 178. (1) Supra, pp. 200, seq., 221, seq. (m) The Hjemmett, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 274; 5 P. D. 227. (n) See Plummer v. Wildman, 3 M. & S. 482. This case was much discussed in Attwood v. Sellar, 5 Q. B. D. 286. the same circumstances (o), may be recovered as general average. The owners of a ship sunk in collision by her own fault cannot recover by way of general average contribution from cargo owners any part of the expense of raising the cargo (p). If a ship after collision sinks, her owners are in some Expense of places liable under local Acts to the harbour authority or sunk in raising ship other public body for the expense of raising her; and collision. such expense may sometimes be recovered by the authorities by sale of the ship and cargo (9). If a vessel wilfully or negligently injures a lightship, Penalty for she incurs, in addition to her liability for damages, a lightship. injuring penalty of 50%. (1). As to the right of the holder of a bottomry bond on freight to share in the amount of the wrong-doing shipowner's statutory liability, see above, p. 196. (0) See per Brett, M. R., in The Ettrick, 6 P. D. 127; Kemp v. Halliday, L. R. 1 Q. B. 520. But see Greer v. Poole, 5 Q. B. D. 272. (p) The Ettrick, 6 P. D. 127; cp. Scaramanga v. Marquand, 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 410, 506, as to the rights of the cargo owner and his underwriters, supra, p. 320. (7) As to the Thames, see The Ettrick, supra; 40 & 41 Vict. c. 16; 20 & 21 Vict. c. 147 (local); the Tyne, see The Crystal, (1894) A. C. 508. (r) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 666. The risk of collision in frequented Rights of holder of bottomry bond on freight. |