Cases in which there collision." came into collision with the other ship. It was held that she was not in fault for starboarding (1). So where a steamship, having another two points on her port quarter, and overtaking her on a course converging with her own, ported and hard-a-ported when the latter was three lengths off, it was held that she had broken no rule of navigation, and was not in fault (m). It has been held that the vessels were approaching "so was "risk of as to involve risk of collision" in the following cases:-Two steamships meeting on nearly opposite courses at a joint speed of eighteen or nineteen knots, and distant a mile and a half (n); a steamship and a sailing-ship, distant two or three miles, and meeting at a joint speed of seventeen knots, the steamship not being able to make out the course of the sailing-ship, but knowing that it was probably nearly opposite to her own (o); a steamship two points on the quarter of another and overtaking her, distant a mile or less than a mile (p); a steamship overtaking another upon a converging course, and distant three miles (9). Where two sailing vessels were approaching each other on courses only half a point from being directly opposite, at a joint speed of twelve knots, and distant from each other. two or three miles, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that there was risk of collision (»). In The Banshee (s), a steamship was going seventeen knots in Dublin Bay, and overtaking another going ten or twelve. The latter was 800 yards ahead, and the overtaking vessel was going in such a direction as to pass within a ship's length of her. It was held that there was no risk of collision, and that the leading ship was not in fault for not keeping her course. Sed qu. (1) The Sylph, Swab. Adm. 233; but see The Corsica, 9 Wall. 630; infra, p. 479. 13. (m) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8, (n) The Jesmond and The Earl of Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1. (0) The Bongainville and The Jas. C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316. (p) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8. (q) The Seaton, 9 P. D. 1. (r) The Nicholls, 7 Wall. 656; and see The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270. (s) 6 Asp. M. C. 221. 66 it continues able until When two ships are approaching each other with risk of When the collision, the rule of the road applies once and for all to or "crossing" "meeting" take them clear. A ship is never required by the Regula- rule applies, tions, after having sighted another, to alter her course first to be applicto starboard and then to port; or, first to keep her course the risk is and then to keep out of the way; or vice versa. In the determined. case, for example, of steamships meeting end on, or nearly so, each is required by Art. 15 to alter her course to starboard. If, while under the port-helm, the relative positions and heading of the ships are changed, so that from meeting ships they become crossing ships, the meeting rule (Art. 15) does not cease to operate, or give place to the crossing" rule (Art. 16). The manoeuvre of porting must be persisted in until the risk of collision is determined. If porting will not take the ships clear, Art. 18 or Art. 23 may apply, and the engines may be stopped, or any other step taken which is necessary to avert collision; but the ships cannot afterwards, and whilst the risk continues, become crossing ships. If once a ship is within the "meeting" rule, or any other rule requiring her to take or keep a definite course, or requiring her to keep out of the way, she cannot, whilst the risk continues, come within the operation of the "crossing" rule, or any other rule requiring her to adopt a different manoeuvre. The object of the rule of the road and of the Regulations would be entirely frustrated if it were possible for a ship to be thrown from one rule to another; if, whilst in the act of obeying one article, she were suddenly to come within the operation of another article, requiring her, perhaps, to take an exactly opposite course, and so making the previous manoeuvre of no effect. The precautions required by the law to be taken where The Regulathere is risk of collision must be taken in time to deter- tions must be complied with mine that risk (t). An alteration of the helm, or other promptly and (t) The Trident, 1 Sp. E. & A. 217, 222. effectually. Close shaving. Regulations apply until risk finally determined, or ships clear. step taken in pursuance of the Regulations, is no defence, unless it is shown that such precaution was taken at the proper time. To be effectual, precautions must be seasonable. If taken at an improper time they are not a compliance with the Regulations, and are no defence. "If you adopt a measure at an improper time it does not take away the culpability of not having done it before and prevented the accident" (u). A vessel is not justified in delaying to take precautions until the last moment; or in trusting to being able to "shave" clear of the other (x). If by doing so she frightens the other into taking a wrong step, and a collision occurs, she will be responsible for the entire loss (y). By a prompt compliance with the Regulations, where a vessel is required to alter her course to avoid another, she apprises the latter of her ability and intention to comply with the Regulations; whereas by delaying to take the required step, she may lead the other vessel to suppose that she is unable to comply with them, and cause her to take a step which may make a collision inevitable. Where a ship, in order to show that she is free from blame, is required to prove that she altered her course at the proper time, it is not enough for her to show that her helm was altered at that time; she must prove that she answered her helm (2) in time. Where, by the action of the helm in accordance with the Regulations, risk of collision has apparently been determined, but in fact it continues, and the risk again becomes apparent, the Regulations are not complied with unless the steps required by them to be taken are taken and persisted (u) Per Dr. Lushington in The Stadacona, 5 Not. of Cas. 371, 374; The Fenham, L. R. 3 P. C. 212 (as to lights). The view taken by the Courts of the United States is the same; The Johnson, 9 Wall. 146; The Vanderbilt, 6 Wall. 225; The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 167; The Sunny side, 1 Otto, 208; The America, 2 Otto, 432. (x) The John Brotherick, 8 Jur. 276; The Benefactor, 14 Blatchf. 254. (y) See above, p. 3. (2) The La Plata, Swab. Adm. 220. in up to the time of collision or until the ships are clear. Thus where, by porting, a steamship, A., shut in the green of B., a steamship which had been approaching her with all her lights showing, and shortly afterwards, owing to the perverse starboarding of B., her green again became visible to A., and thereupon A. again ported and again shut in B.'s green, but B. continued to starboard, and again showed her green to A.; though A. ported a third time, it was held that she was in fault, because she did not stop and reverse when B. (a) showed her green for the third time. A vessel sailing upon a voyage that may not be termi- Ship to be nated until a Regulation as to lights or fog-signals comes required provided with into force, and which is enacted, but not in force, when she appliances. sails, must, if possible, be provided with fog-signals, lights, and whatever is necessary to enable her to comply with the Regulation when it comes into force (V). custom inconsistent with A the Regula tions cannot an be good. No alleged practice of seamen of avoiding other ships by Practice or taking measures other than, and inconsistent with, those required by the Regulations is recognized by the law. defendant cannot be heard to allege such a practice as excuse for a violation of the Regulations (c). Where a custom was set up that merchant ships should keep out of the way of Queen's ships coming out of Devonport harbour by the deep water channel, it was held that it was not binding in law (d). On the same principle, under former Acts requiring ships to navigate on the starboard side of a river, it was held that it was no excuse for a vessel on her wrong side that she was keeping out of the strength of the tide (e). So a custom to treat sailing ships in the trades as close-hauled, when in fact they are a point or two free, (a) The Arratoon Apcar, 15 App. Cas. 37. (b) The Love Bird, 6 P. D. 80. (e) The Sylph, 2 Sp. E. & A. 75; The Unity, Swab. Ad. 101; The Hand of Providence, ibid. 107; The Araxes and The Black Prince, 15 (d) The Promise and H.M.S. To- was disregarded by the Courts in applying Arts. 14 and 22 (ƒ). The penalties attached to non-observance of the Regulations have been considered in former chapters (g). THE REGULATIONS. The following are the Regulations which came into force on the 1st of September, 1884. At the present date (1890) they apply exclusively to British, French, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, Norwegian, Swedish, Brazilian, Turkish, Chilian, and Danish ships and boats (h). The Regulations of 1880, which apply to the vessels of other countries, are identical with those of 1884, except as regards fishingboats' lights and some matters of minor importance, which are noted in the text below. The existing Regulations are substantially the same as those of 1863. Many of the cases cited below arose under the earlier Regulations, but are, it is submitted, binding authorities upon the points for which they are cited as to the construction and effect of the existing Regulations (i). The Regulations are set out in the Appendix below (). Those of 1880 will be found L. R. 4 P. D. p. 241; and those of 1884, L. R. 9 P. D. p. 247. (f) The Earl Wemyss, 6 Asp. M. C. 364; on App. 61 L. T. N. S. 289. (g) See pp. 38, 298, 300, above. (h) See above, p. 344. (i) Cf. per James, L. J., L. R. 5 Ch. 706:-"Where once certain words in an Act of Parliament have received a judicial construction in one of the superior Courts, and the Legislature has repeated them, without any alteration, in a subsequent statute, I conceive that the Legislature must be taken to have used them according to the meaning which a court of compe tent jurisdiction has given them." (k) Infra, p. 537. In the same Appendix (infra, p. 548) will be found the text of the Regulations approved by representatives from the Governments of the principal maritime nations at the International Marine Conference held at Washington in 1890. It is probable that these (Washington) Regulations will, before long, be enacted in the place of the existing Regulations. |