Offences on Passenger Steamers. § 626. The following provisions have been enacted for the purpose of enforcing proper behaviour and discipline among passengers in a passenger steamer. By the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862 :(i) 35. The following offenders: (that is to say) (2) Any person who, being drunken or disorderly on board any such Penalties on drunken or disorderly passengers. (3) Any person on board any such steamer who, after warning by the On persons master or any other officer of the steamer, molests or continues molesting to molest any passenger; passengers. persons forcing way on board full. (4) Any person who, after having been refused admission into any Penalties on such steamer by the owner or any person in his employ on account of such steamer being full, and who after having had the full amount of his fare (if he has paid the same) returned or tendered to him, nevertheless persists in attempting to enter the same; (5) Any person, having got on board any such steamer, who, upon being requested on the like account by the owner or any person in his employ to leave such steamer before the same has quitted the place at which such person got on board, and who upon having the full amount of his fare (if he has paid the same) returned or tendered to him, refuses to comply with such request; the ship when And on persons refusing to quit the ship when full. (6) Any person who travels or attempts to travel in any such Penalties for steamer without having previously paid his fare, and with avoiding intent to avoid payment thereof; (7) Any person who, having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds in any such steamer beyond such distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; (8) Any person who knowingly and wilfully refuses or neglects, on arriving at the point to which he has paid his fare, to quit any such steamer; and (9) Any person on board any such steamer who does not, when required by the master or other officer of such steamer, either Shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty (i) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63. payment of fares. Penalty for injuring steamer or molesting crew. Manner of offenders. shillings; but such liability shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him. 36. Any person on board any such steamer who wilfully does or causes to be done anything in such a manner as to obstruct or injure any part of the machinery or tackle of such steamer, or to obstruct, impede, or molest the crew or any of them in the navigation or management of such steamer, or otherwise in the execution of their duty upon or about such steamer, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds. 37. It shall be lawful for the master or other officer of any duly apprehending surveyed passenger steamer, and for all persons called by him to his assistance, to detain any person who has committed any offence against any of the provisions of the two last preceding sections of this Act, and whose name and address are unknown to such officer, and to convey such offender with all convenient despatch before some justice without any warrant or other authority than this Act; and such justice shall have jurisdiction to try the case, and shall proceed with all convenient despatch to the hearing and determining of the complaint against such offender. Penalty on persons refusing to give their name and address. Power to refuse or remove passengers who are drunk or misconduct themselves. And by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854:(h) 324. Every person who, having committed any of the offences mentioned in [sub-sections 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 of s. 35 of the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862], or [any] of them, refuses on application of the master of the ship or of any other person in the employ of the owner thereof to give his name and address, or who on such application gives a false name or address, shall incur a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, to be paid to the said owner. 325. The master of any home-trade passenger steamship may refuse to receive on board thereof any person who by reason of drunkenness or otherwise is in such a state, or misconducts himself in such a manner, as to cause annoyance to other passengers on board, or if such person is on board, may put him on shore at any convenient place; and no person so refused admittance or put on shore shall be entitled to the return of any fare he may have paid. (h) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. Liability of Masters and Owners for Damage by Collision. 528 563 collisions. § 627. AN important part of the master's duty is so to navi- Master's duty gate his ship as to avoid collision with any other vessel. He is as to avoiding bound to take all such precautions as a man of ordinary prudence and skill, exercising a reasonable foresight, would use to avert danger and to prevent his ship doing damage to others in the circumstances in which he may happen to be placed. (a) And even when his ship is rendering salvage services, if she causes damage to the salved ship by the master's negligence, or gross want of proper navigation, the shipowner, master and salving ship are liable for the damage thus caused.(b) Regulations (c) have been established by Statutes and Orders in Council for the purpose of preventing collisions at sea, and all owners and masters are bound to carefully observe and obey them.(d) If any of them are neglected by master or crew, the owners and master will, as a rule, be liable for any damage occasioned by such neglect.(e) A master is liable both to his owners and to third persons for (e) But whether the master can be made liable for the negligent acts of the crew appears doubtful in this country, though it has been so held in America. See Blaikie v. Stembridge, 6 C. B. N. S. 894. master. Liability of damage resulting from a collision caused by his negligence or misconduct, and he may be sued either at common law or in an Admiralty Court.(ƒ) "It is open to any person, who has received damage by a collision, to recover at common law; or to avail himself of his lien on the ship which he asserts has injured him."(g) Remedy in While action Common Law. When judg ment in rem is a bar. § 628. Proceedings in the Admiralty Division against the ship in default afford, in some respects, a better remedy in cases of collision, than an action at law. For here the plaintiff has the power of proceeding in rem, that is, against the ship itself, and of arresting both English and foreign ships. And upon questions of fact, which require skill and experience in navigation, the Court has the assistance of the Trinity Masters. While an action is pending at common law, the Admiralty is pending at Division will not allow a suit based on precisely the same grounds. But where the plaintiff has obtained a judgment in an action at Common Law, and is unable to obtain the results of that judgment, owing to the insolvency of the defendants or otherwise, he may afterwards avail himself of proceedings in rem in the Admiralty Division.(h) Nor is a judgment in rem in the Admiralty Division any bar to subsequent proceedings in a court of common law, unless the proceeds of the ship are at least equal to the amount of damage suffered. (i) But where proceedings in rem in respect of the same collision are pending in a foreign court, the Admiralty Division will stay an action here if it deems it contrary to good faith or vexatious.(k) And under certain circumstances a foreign judgment will be an absolute bar to proceedings between the same parties in this country.(1) Burden of proof. § 629. In cases of collision, the burden of proof lies upon the owners of the ship seeking to recover damages, and they must establish that the loss was attributable to the fault of the party sued.(m) But if a collision happen between a stationary vessel and a vessel in motion, the latter will be held to blame, unless she can excuse or justify herself.(n) When there is a reasonable doubt as to which party is to blame, the loss must be sustained by the party on whom it has fallen.(0) The damage will be presumed to be the consequence of the collision, unless the contrary be shown. "When a collision has (m) The City of London, Swab. 300; 11 Moo. P. C. 311; The Bolina, 3 No. of Ca. 208; The Carron, 1 Spinks, at p. 93; The Monte Rosa, (1893) P. 23. (n) The Annot Lyle, 11 P. D. 114; The Indus, 12 P.D. 46; The Albano (1892) P. at p. 427; The Culgoa, 9 T. L. R. 564. (0) The Catherine of Dover, 2 Hag. at 154. taken place, though both vessels are to blame, yet the general inference is that the damage accruing was caused by the collision, and the burden of proof is on those who wish to show that any part of it arose from subsequent want of skill in the crew of the damaged vessel."(p) § 630. Negligence has been defined as "a want of that atten- Negligence, tion and vigilance which is due to the security of other vessels what it is. that are navigating on 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 bounden duty, entitling the sufferer to reparation in damages."(4) And this want of due vigilance may be shown either in the improper navigation of the ship, such as the absence of an adequate look-out,() or in the negligently(s) sending the ship to sea with defective equipment, such as an inadequate crew or inefficient steering gear.(1) § 631. If through the negligence or misconduct of those on Liability for board a ship, another ship either receives or does damage, the consequential damage. owners of the wrong-doing ship are liable for the damage, even though there was no collision between the two ships.(u) Thus, in one case, the Blue Bell, coming up the channel to Hartlepool on a dark morning, was compelled suddenly to port her helm by reason of the Industry being discovered across the fair way of the channel without any light exhibited. In consequence of the manoeuvre, the Blue Bell took the ground, and though her anchor was let go, dragged it and drove against the town wall of Hartlepool, and suffered damage. It was held in the Court of Admiralty that the owners of the Blue Bell were entitled to recover compensation for the damage sustained. (a) And if a ship becomes unmanageable by the negligence of her crew, and while so unmanageable, comes into collision with another or otherwise does damage, the former ship is liable for the damage so occasioned.(y) § 632. Where a master and crew are bound by statute to obey Where ship the directions of a harbour master, and a collision is occasioned authorities was obeying by the ship being conducted according to the harbour master's of port. directions, the ship is not liable, in the absence of contributory (p) Per Dr. Lushington in The Linda, Sw. 306; The Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 7. (q) Per Lord Stowell in The Dundee, 1 Hagg. at 120. (r) The Emily, Olcott, 132; The Indiana, 1 Abb. 330 (American); Pritchard Adm. Dig. I. 219; The City of London, Swab. 300; The George, 2 W. Rob. 386; The Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 7; The Urania, Swab. 253; The Diana, 1 W. Rob. 131; 4 Moo. P. C. 11; The Europa, B. & L. 89. (8) The European, 10 P. D. 99. (t) The General Gordon, 63 L. T. 117; reversed on the facts, 68 L. T. 469; The Virgo, 35 L. T. 519; The Warkworth, 9 P. D. 20, 145; The European, 10 P. D. 99; The Merchant Prince, (1892) P. 179. (u) The Industrie, L. R. 3 Ad. 303; (x) The Industrie, L. R. 3 Ad. 303. |