making for the same vessel in order to get the contract to tow came into collision. It was held that the proper and usual way for tugs to come alongside was to come. up on the quarter heading the same way as the vessel, and that the tug which was ahead of the vessel was in fault for not rounding to and coming up under the ship's stern. A steam-tug unnecessarily entering a narrow cut leading to the Bute Docks, after a signal had been made by the harbour authority for sailing ships to enter, was held in fault for a collision (). The Supreme Court in America has held that a vessel undertaking to pass another in a narrow channel (p), or navigating such a channel in weather that makes it dangerous (q), does so at her own risk. Where a ship was ashore in such a place, it was held that, whether she went ashore by her own negligence or not, another vessel attempting to pass her was in fault for running into her (). Where two vessels approaching a lofty vessel from opposite sides rounded under her stern so close that neither saw the other's lights until too late to avoid collision, both were held in fault (s). Where the leading vessel of two steamers proceeding down a river with the stream, and bound to the same place on its banks, rounded to at a proper place to land her passengers, and the following vessel, instead of stopping and rounding to under her stern, attempted to turn ahead of her and a collision occurred, the following vessel was (in Canada) held solely in fault (t). Article 29. Though prudence requires a ship to avoid unnecessarily Crossing lines crossing the track of vessels bound upon well-known of traffic. (0) The Effort, 5 Not. of Cas. 279. (s) The Albany, 74 Fed. Rep. 311. (t) The Crescent v. The Rowland Hill, Stuart's Rep. (1858) (ViceAdm. Ct., Lower Canada), 289, Article 29. Vessel of Stowing anchors and courses to and from a centre of commerce, it is not negligence for her to do so (u). If a vessel is of a construction or is in a condition which is specially dangerous to other vessels, it is her duty to warn approaching vessels of the fact. Where a ship of war carried on her stem under water a projecting ram or spur, it was said that under ordinary circumstances it would have been her duty to apprise a vessel coming alongside of the risk she ran in approaching her (). Special precautions are required of a ship in a disabled condition, of a ship hove-to and unable to keep clear of other ships, as well as of other ships approaching the disabled vessel (); of a tug with a ship in tow, and of both the tug and her tow, so as not to damage each other when taking the tow-line on board, and during the performance of the towage (z). It is the duty of a ship unable to keep out of the way in compliance with the regulations to hail the other ship, and of the latter herself to keep out of the way (a). Apart from local regulations upon the subject, it is spars in dock. negligence in a dock or crowded waters to carry the anchor outside the rail, or not to stow and rig in spars and Coming out of dock. other hamper likely to injure other craft (b). In America, it is held that if a ship is damaged by a raft of such a size or construction as to be a danger to other vessels being navigated with ordinary care, the owner of the tug in charge of it is liable (c). Where a vessel is coming out of dock or harbour, or executing a manoeuvre in the course of which an altera (u) The Iberia, 40 Fed. Rep. 893. (x) The Bellerophon, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 58; and see The Batavier, 1 Sp. E. & A. 378. (y) The Arthur Gordon and The (z) See supra, pp. 211, 219, seq. Underwriter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361. (b) The Sontag, 40 Fed. Rep. 174; The Palmetto, 1 Biss. 140; The Kolon, 9 Ben. 197; The Industrie, 27 Fed. Rep. 767. Cf. supra, pp. 16, 22. (c) The Niagara, 44 Fed. Rep. 775; The Athabasca, 45 Fed. Rep. 651. tion of her helm is necessary, another ship approaching Article 29. her is justified in acting upon the assumption that the necessary measures will be taken by the former vessel with proper skill and despatch, and that her course will be that which is obviously intended. A schooner coming out of St. George's Dock in the Mersey, the tide being flood and the wind southerly, saw a tug with a ship in tow coming down the river towards her. She put her helm hard-a-port and scandalized her mainsail in order to get her head to point down the river. Owing to the flood tide catching her under the starboard bow she did not answer her helm readily, and came into collision with the tug. If she had run up her outer jib, which she did not do, she would have answered her helm better, and would have kept clear of the tug. The latter had kept her course in the expectation that the schooner would set her jib and straighten herself in the river, as she was intending to do. It was held that the schooner was solely in fault for the collision, and that the tug did right in acting upon the assumption that the schooner's jib would have been run up, and that she would have straightened herself and kept on the tug's starboard side (d). Dumb barges or lighters that drive with the tide have Dumb barges. little or no control over their own movements, and cannot keep out of the way of other craft. In the absence of any rule or custom, they are not required to navigate in the shallow water of a river, so as to leave the deep channel open to vessels of greater draught (e). In the Thames, where they do not carry anchors, they are justified in going on after being overtaken by a fog, until they come in contact with something to which they can make fast (ƒ). (d) The Ulster, 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 234. Cf. The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8; The Servia, 42 Davis, 144, supra, p. 375; Walsh v. Brooklyn and New York Ferry Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 507; The Hackensack, 5 Fed. Rep. 121. (e) The Ralph Creyke, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 19. (f) The Rose of England, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 304. Article 29. It is, therefore, the duty of other vessels, and particularly of steamships, to keep out of their way. In order to do this, they must know, in each case, the set of the tide and probable course of the lighter (g). Speed in narrow channels. Special precautions required at launch. In a river, harbour, or narrow channel, steamships must go at such a rate of speed as will not raise a swell to endanger barges and other craft. In the Thames, and some other rivers, there are bye-laws to this effect. Whatever the rate of speed required by local bye-laws, if a ship, though not exceeding that rate, endangers other craft, she will be held in fault (). But a vessel sunk or damaged by the swell of a passing vessel cannot recover if she was mismanaged, overladen (i), or unfit to encounter the ordinary wash of river traffic (k). In the Suez Canal, five-and-a-half knots; in the Tees, six miles an hour; and in certain parts of the Thames, seven statute miles over the ground are the highest rates of speed allowed by the local rules (1). Where a rate of speed is specified by a local rule of navigation or Act of Parliament, the rate over the ground, as distinguished from the rate through the water, is primâ facie intended (m). Where a vessel is being launched, the law casts upon the persons in charge of the launch the obligation of conducting it with the utmost precaution, and of giving such notice as is reasonable and sufficient to prevent injury to passing vessels. In The Andalusian (n), although notice of the intended launch was posted up in a conspicuous place, flags were flying on the ship to be launched, and two tugs (g) The Swallow, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 371; The Owen Wallis, L. R. 4 A. & E. 175. For American decisions to the same effect, see Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466; Pearce v. Page, 24 How. 228; Butterfield v. Boyd, 4 Blatchf. 356. (h) The Batavier, Sp. E. & A. 378; 9 Moo. P. C. C. 286; see The Duke of Cornwall, 1 Pr. Adm. Dig. 135; Smith v. Dobson, 3 M. & G. 59; The Columbia, 61 Fed. Rep. 220; (i) Luxford v. Large, 5 C. & P. 421. (k) The Pilgrim, 57 Fed. Rep. 670. (7) See Appendix for these rules. (m) The R. L. Alston, 8 P. D. 5. (n) 2 P. D. 231; see also The Vianna, Swab. 405. with boats were employed to warn passing vessels, a vessel Article 29. that was passing was not warned, and those in charge of the launch were held responsible for a collision with her. In The Blenheim (o), Dr. Lushington said, with regard to the duty of those in charge of the launch :-" Such reasonable notice of a launch shall be given as shall prevent danger or reasonable chance of danger to other vessels navigating in the river. That is the first great principle and rule in these cases. As all other vessels have a right to navigate in a river, no person shall interfere with that navigation without such reasonable notice of a launch as may prevent the chance of an injury to them. What is reasonable notice depends on local circumstances, the breadth of the river, the number of vessels passing, and other circumstances of that kind. It must be not a mere general notice of a launch on a particular day; the notice must so specify the time of the launch that vessels navigating up and down the river may not be damaged or incur danger." In The Andalusian (p) the duty of those in charge of a launch was thus stated: "The law throws upon those who launch a vessel the obligation of doing so with the utmost precaution, and giving such notice as is reasonable and sufficient to prevent any injury happening from the launch; and, moreover, the burden of showing that every reasonable precaution has been taken, and every reasonable notice given, lies upon her and those navigating the launch." This statement of the law was cited and acted upon by Butt, J., in The George Roper (q). In the same case the learned judge pointed out that "when you set a vessel of large size, without engines and without a helm, and with only a tug to manage her, off the ways at a (0) 4 Not. of Cas. 393. (p) 2 P. D. 231. (9) 8 P. D. 119. Similar language was used by Sir R. Phillimore in The Glengarry, 2 P. D. 235. |