of the approaching vessel, entitles the anchored vessel to recover. In the case of The Bedford1 the court held that wilful negligence would, under such circumstances, entitle the anchored vessel to recover only divided damages. The general rule of damages is that where both parties are doing an unlawful thing, the damages are divided, in the absence of wilfulness; but when the damages resulting are from the wanton and wilful conduct of one, a full recovery may be had. 15 Blatch. 200. While vessels have the right to anchor in a crowded harbor, a failure to use the utmost diligence to prevent collisions while at anchor in an exposed situation will prevent a full recovery for injuries received by collision resulting therefrom. The Plainfield, 2 N. J. L. 331; The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. R. 919. No law or custom being shown prohibiting vessels from anchoring in the St. Clair river below Port Huron, held, that a vessel was not in fault for anchoring there, where she leaves plenty of room on both sides of her for vessels to pass. She is bound, however, to keep a vigilant anchor-watch. The Master, 1 Brown, 342. Where a vessel came into New York harbor during a thick fog, and, fearing to proceed, anchored in an improper place, but used due precautions to give notice of her position, when a ferry-boat having knowledge of her situation collided with her, the ferry was held wholly in fault. The D. S. Gregory, 2 Ben. 166. Where a tug with two tows was going down the Mississippi river and one of the tows collided with a vessel at anchor in mid-stream, where the river was sufficiently wide for the tug and tows to have passed on either side, it was held that the tug was presumably at fault. Culberg v. The Continental, 3 Woods, 32. Where a collision occurred at night between a steamboat under way and a schooner at anchor in the middle of the Hudson river opposite Fort Lee, it was held that the anchoring of a vessel in the middle of a river was not an act of negligence The Indiana, Abb. Adm. 330. Anchoring in a river or other roadstead is not necessarily of itself negligence, but great care must be exercised to leave ample room for passing vessels. The Oscar Townsend, 17 Fed. R. 93; The J. W. Everman, 2 Hughes, 17; The S. S. Shaw, 6 Fed. R. 93; The Lady Franklin, 2 Low. 220. A vessel anchored in the middle of a river about one thousand nine hundred feet wide, where, vessels were frequently passing, but leaving sufficient room on either side for vessels to pass. Held, this was not of itself an improper place, but its position required great vigilance in guarding against approaching vessels. The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. R. 919. Sec. 35. Anchor-watch. The international regulations make no provision for an anchor-watch. This fact, however, will not justify its omission where the vessel is anchored in any position where there is liability of danger from passing vessels. The international rules do not pretend to give every precautionary measure that should be adopted by vessels. It would be impossible to frame regulations for every set of circumstances that may arise. They simply specify a few of the most apparent necessities, and the law imposes upon a vessel the duty to take such other precautions for self-preservation and to protect others as circumstances may require. It is certainly not sufficient to say that a vessel has followed the letter of the rules where it has omitted other duties equally binding. It is not sufficient that the regulation anchor-lights be burning. It is the duty of every vessel to keep an anchorwatch on deck, where it is able not only to know that the lights are burning, but also to watch for approaching vessels, and use whatever means may be required to notify an approaching vessel of its presence if the anchor-lights give insufficient notice. A vessel, in case of collision, must not only show that the lights were placed in position, but it must show to the satisfaction of the court that the lights were burning at the time of the collision, and this can be done in no other way than by having men on deck whose duty it is to know that the lights are kept burning.1 Under the rules an anchor-light is indispensable. The absence of an anchor-watch may be justified where the circumstances are such that there is no reason to believe that a vessel will pass; but when the situation is an exposed one, and there is a frequent passage of vessels, or there is reason to believe that vessels will pass, the omission of an anchor-watch is such negligence as will defeat a recovery, in 1The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164; The 572; The W. J. McCaldin, 35 Fed. Oliver, 22 Fed. R. 848. 2 The Erastus Corning, 25 Fed. R. R. 330. the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the colliding vessel.' The watch must be one whose duty it is to keep a lookout for approaching vessels. The fact that the usual deck-watch was kept was held insufficient in the case of The Henry Warner, although in the case of The Clarita and The Clara Justice Clifford held that a vessel at anchor in a proper place, with a proper anchor-light, and with one of her crew on deck, is sufficiently watched. The sufficiency of the watch must depend upon the circumstances of the case, a stricter watch being required when the danger from passing vessels is greater. 3 Sec. 36. Flare-up lights by vessels at anchor.- Article 12 of the regulations of 1890 provides that "every vessel may, if necessary in order to attract attention, in addition to 1 The Indiana, Abb. Adm. 330; The Henry Warner, 29 Fed. R. 601. 229 Fed. R. 601. 323 Wall. 1. Where a vessel was anchored within the Delaware breakwater, where she had been for twentyfour hours, on a dark and stormy night when other vessels were continually coming within the breakwater to escape the storm, no watch being set, it was held that she alone was responsible for an ensuing collision. The Clara, 102 U. S. 200. Unless a vessel, which is moored in the usual track of shipping, keeps a watch and sets a light on a dark night, she cannot recover damages for being run into by a steamer, if the latter be not grossly negligent, nor intentionally a wrong-doer. Innis v. The Steamer Senator, 1 Cal. 459. Where a vessel floating in a strong current down a river when there was no breeze failed to obey her helm and collided with a boat at ancher, held, that the latter was liable for damages for failing to keep a watch, when it appeared that by porting her helm the collision could have been avoided. Buzzard v. The Petrel, 6 McLean, 491. An anchor-watch is not bound to take active measures to get the vessel out of the way of an ap proaching ship in broad daylight, unless it is discovered that the approaching vessel is not under control, or does not discover the anchored ship. The Lady Franklin, 2 Low. 220. A schooner was run down at night, while at anchor, by a steamer; she exhibited an anchorlight, the night being good for seeing lights. It was held that if the lookout on the steamer had observed due vigilance he would have discovered the light in time to have avoided the collision; but there being no anchor-watch on the lights which she is by these rules required to carry, show a flare-up light, or use any detonating signal that cannot be mistaken for a distress signal." Irrespective of any rule, it is the duty of a vessel at anchor to exhibit not only her regular anchor-light, but, when there is reason to believe that it is not seen, to exhibit any other light or make any detonating signal that will attract the attention of the approaching vessel. Under the rule a flareup light may be used, although its use is not obligatory if any other device, light, or sound signal can be made to better answer the purpose. The object of a flare-up light is to attract attention. If this knowledge is furnished in any other way, the office of the flare-up light is performed and its exhibition is immaterial. Failure to display a lighted torch, or to use other signals of a reasonable nature to attract the attention of the approaching vessel, is such negligence as will prevent but a partial recovery, if there is any reasonable probability that the collision would have been prevented had this been done. Where such additional precautions would make no difference in the result, a full recovery is not barred by a vessel complying with the rules in every other respect.? the schooner, when lying in an exposed situation, she was also held in fault and the damages divided. The Guyandotte, 39 Fed. R. 575; The Achilles, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 463. any reason to believe that her regular anchor-light is not observed by the approaching vessel; but when her own lights are properly set and burning, and there is no The Schooner Margaret v. The reason to suppose that they canC. Whiting, 3 Fed. R. 870; The not be seen, a failure to exhibit a Buckeye, 9 Fed. R. 666; The Lizzie torch is not such a fault on the Henderson, 20 Fed. R. 524; The part of the anchored vessel as will Avon, 22 Fed. R. 905; The Isaac Bell, 9 Fed. R. 842. warrant a division of damages, where the approaching vessel is "The Frank P. Lee, 34 Fed. R. shown plainly to be in fault. Eng480; The Marion, 56 Fed. R. 271; strom v. The Howard B. Peck, 48 The Erastus Corning, 25 Fed. R. Fed. R. 334; The Avon, 22 Fed. R. 574; The Isaac Bell, 9 Fed. R. 842. 905. Under the international rules a ressel at anchor is in duty bound to show a lighted torch if there is Under section 4234 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, it was held, in the case of The Lizzie Sec. 37. Lights by vessels aground.- Article 11 of the rules of 1890 requires every vessel aground at night, in or near a fair-way, to exhibit the lights prescribed for vessels at anchor, and, in addition thereto, "two red lights prescribed by article 4 (a) of these regulations," to wit: "Two red lights in a vertical line, one over the other, not less than six feet apart, to be hung where they can best be seen." A vessel aground is in circumstances similar to one at anchor, and should exhibit the same lights and use the same precautions that are required of a vessel at anchor.1 2 Sec. 38. Lights on vessels at wharf.-The international rules make no provision for the exhibition of lights by vessels when moored at wharves or docks, and there is no established maritime rule requiring the exhibition of any lights by vessels when so situated, unless there are special circumstances of danger making the display of a light necessary; and a vessel is under no legal obligation to exhibit any light unless the local harbor regulations require it; and when properly moored out of the usual track of moving vessels, she is under no legal duty to maintain a watch, nor to warn approaching vessels of danger. The law imposes a duty upon all vessels navigating in the vicinity of wharves to navigate with such caution that injury will not follow. Where there is an established custom of the port, or where there are local regulations requiring a vessel moored at her Henderson, 20 Fed. R. 524, that a vessel at anchor was under obligation to exhibit not only her regular anchor-light, but also a torch or flare-up, on the approach of a steamer, and a failure to do so was negligence. A steamer maneuvering to come to an anchor in a place and manner such that her regular lights cannot be seen by an approaching vessel is bound to give timely notice of her presence by showing a light or some other sufficient means. The Philotax, 37 L. T. (N. S.) 540. See "Anchor-lights," sec. 24. 1 The Frank Moffatt, 2 Flip. 291; The Ant, 10 Fed. R. 294. 2 The Bridgeport, 14 Wall. 116; 7 Blatch. 361; Hadden v. The J. H. Rutter, 35 Fed. R. 365; The Granite State, 3 Wall. 311. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. The John Adams, 1 Cliff. 404; The Express, 48 Fed. R. 323. |