The duties imposed upon steamers by all existing rules, by those of the supervising inspectors as well as the statutory rules of 1864, when meeting end on or nearly so, are substantially the same. They require vessels meeting on courses parallel, and so close together as to render collision probable, to alter their courses to starboard and pass port to port. The rule does not apply to approaching vessels on courses sufficiently distant to exclude the possibility of collision if each pursues its course, especially if the vessels have each other on their own starboard hand, as the rule would, under such circumstances, tend to promote rather than avoid collision. The obligation to port the helm depends upon the distance apart the respective courses are, and does not prevent passing on the starboard side, if the movement is made in ample time to avoid danger; the rule to port being imperative only when meeting "so as to involve risk of collision." It must be observed when there is any probability of collision resulting from keeping the course pursued. It is no justification for the party departing from the rule to show that collision would not have occurred had the other kept her course; it must be clearly proven that the other vessel ought to have perceived, and could have seen by the use of ordinary judgment, that by reason of the distance between their respective courses there was no probable chance of collision by keeping them. Vessels are meeting "end on," within the meaning of the rule, when approaching each other from opposite directions, or on such parallel lines as to involve risk of collision on account of their proximity.5 By the new rules the term "end on " is defined and lim 14 Fed. R. 587; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97; The America, 92 U. S. 432; Holland v. Brown, 35 Fed. R. 43. 1 The Sarah Thorp, 50 Fed. R. 587; Hunt v. Hoboken Land Imp. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 161. 2 Ward v. The Ogdensburg, 5 McLean, 622; Rogers v. The S. B. Wheeler, 4 Cliff. 184; The Santa 3 The James Bowen, 10 Ben. 430. 4 Wheeler v. The Eastern State, 2 Curt. 141. 5 The Nichols, 7 Wall. 656; The Dexter, 23 Wall. 69; The Farnley, 8 Fed. R. 629. ited to those cases where each of the approaching ships by day sees the masts of the other in a line, or nearly in a line, with her own, and by night where each is in such a position as to see both the side-lights of the other. When approaching in opposite directions and on lines so near that prudence suggests a change of course to avoid misapprehension or chance of collision, they are meeting "nearly end on " within the meaning of the statute, and each should put her helm to port. This rule, like all others, does not apply when there are circumstances rendering such a maneuver unsafe.2 In such cases due regard must be had to all the dangers, and such means taken as the conditions require. In the absence of peculiar and unusual circumstances the rule requires each vessel to port, and failing to do this she is liable in damages.3 Where one of two approaching steamers observes the rule and the other does not, the one failing to comply with the rule must prove justification in order to avoid the consequences of the failure, and the burden of proof is on her to make out a justification.* 126 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 18; was on her. The Edwin H. WebThe Manitoba, 2 Flip. 241. ster, 18 Fed. R. 724. 2 Cooper v. Eastern Transp. Co., 75 N. Y. 116; The Santa Claus, Olc. Adm. 428; Ward v. Ogdensburg, 5 McLean, 622. 3 The Johnson, 9 Wall. 146; The Mary Sanford, 3 Ben. 100; The North Star, 8 Blatch. 209; The Clipper, 14 Fed. R. 586; The Nautilus, 1 Ware, 529; The Frostberg, 25 Fed. R. 451; The Niagra, 3 Blatch. 37; The Comet, 9 Blatch. 323. 4 The Washington, 3 Blatch. 276. Where a tug was bound to keep out of the way of another, both because she agreed to a signal by the latter, and because she had the latter on her starboard hand, it was held the burden of proof to show fault on the part of the other The Britannia and the Beaconsfield exchanged signals to pass port to port. When about a half mile apart the former touched bottom, and to avoid grounding went ahead at full speed for about half a minute. Her helm was then put to port, but her swing to starboard was retarded by the tide and wind. The movements of the Britannia not indicating that she was porting, the Beaconsfield blew a single blast of its whistle, and hearing no answer reversed, the danger of collision continuing. The Britannia then began to swing to starboard, and it appeared that if the Beaconsfield had continued her course no collision would have occurred. There Sec. 66. Crossing courses.-The international rules provide "that when two steam-vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other."1 being a reef of rocks ahead prevent ing a continuance of her course, it was held the Britannia was wholly in fault. The Britannia, 42 Fed. R. 67. Where two propellers, B. and T., were approaching in such a way that the B. had the T. on her starboard side, it was held that it was the duty of the B. to keep out of the way of the other, and she was liable in damages for failing to do so. The Peshtigo, 25 Fed. R. 488. Rule 2 of the supervising inspect ors, which required a steamer in the fifth situation, having the other on her own starboard bow, to go to the right, was held not in conflict with rule 19 of the Revised Statutes, section 4233, though it took away the option existing under the latter to go to the right or left. The Grand Republic, 16 Fed. R. 424. In the case of The Sampson, 3 Wall. Jr. 14, it was held that the rule requiring vessels meeting to turn to the right did not apply to a tug moving slowly against the tide towing a heavy vessel out of the center of a channel left entirely free to the other vessel. A steamer and a tug collided on Long Island Sound on a dark night, each having proper lights displayed. When first sighted they were about a mile distant. The tug ported her wheel one point, and when about a half mile distant from the steamer ported another point and blew one whistle, whereupon the steamer blew two whistles and shaped her course across the bows of the tug, under a starboard wheel. The tug sounded a danger whistle and backed at full speed, but too late to avoid collision. Held, that the steamer was wholly at fault. Thomas Towboat Co. v. The Sarah Thorpe, 44 Fed. R. 637. A steamer bound to keep out of the way must at her peril shape her course for a safe margin, against the contingencies of navigation and the effects of tide and currents. The City of Springfield, 29 Fed. R. 923. Two steamers, C. and M., approached one another on nearly parallel lines, at a speed of nine and eleven miles respectively, showing their green and white lights. When about two miles apart, the M. starboarded her wheel half a point. When within four hundred and fifty feet of each other, the C. suddenly ported, showed her red light, and sheered across the course of the M., which starboarded but did not reverse until the moment of collision. Neither vessel signaled. Held, that the vessels were not meeting end on. The M. was not in fault for starboarding prior to the collision, but was in fault for not signaling, slowing up and reversing when the collision became imminent. The Manitoba, 7 S. Ct. 1158. 123 U. S. Stat. at L. 441, art. 16, "Every vessel which is directed by these rules to keep out of the way of another shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other." This rule requiring the vessel having the other on her own starboard hand to keep out of the way is not to be construed so as to mean in all cases putting her wheel to port. She may, within the meaning of this rule, keep out of the way by any other means by which the object may be most safely attained, by stopping, reversing, going ahead, starboarding or other maneuver required by the circumstances or emergencies of the case. The rule only applies to the case of vessels crossing and on courses so interfering as to involve risk of collision. The obligation to keep out of the way imposed by the rule begins as soon as there is risk of collision if the course is pursued, and continues until all danger is past. It does not permit the vessel charged with the duty of keeping out of the way to continue its course if there is any risk involved in doing so, even though there is a possibility or probability of collision not ensuing. If there is any risk whatever attending, the rule becomes inoperative, and the vessel must take such measures as are necessary to keep out of the way, and that without approaching the other so near as to create any uncertainty as to her intentions and ability to do so. So long as the vessel bound to keep out of the Rules 1885; Rule 18, Regulations for the navigation of the Great Lakes; 26 U. S Stat. at L. 320, art. 19, Rules 1890. 126 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 22. 230 L. T. (N. S.) 576; The Oceanic, 61 Fed. R. 338. Where collision occurs by reason of the violation of this rule by the vessel whose duty it is to keep out of the way, she should be held in fault, unless by clear and undisputed evidence she establishes her freedom from fault. Meyers Excursion Co. v. The Emma Kate Ross, 41 Fed. R. 826; The Waverly, 41 Fed. R. 607; The Thingvalla, 42 Fed. R. 331; The St. Johns, 42 Fed. R. 75; The Knight, 43 Fed. R. 895; Ocean S. S. Co. v. The Talisman, 36 Fed. R. 600; The Commodore Jones, 25 Fed. R. 506; The Aurania, 29 Fed. R. 98; The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270; The L. P. Dayton, 120 U. S. 337; The Bristol, 11 Fed. R. 156; Greenman v. The Narragansett, 4 Fed. R. 244; The Chesapeake, 5 Blatch. 411; The Corsica, 9 Wall. 630; The Manhassett, 34 Fed. R. 408. The Farragut, 35 Fed. R. 617; way has clearly time and space enough to do so, and there are no indications of any contrary intent, the other vessel has the right to presume that she will do her duty, and is not required, unless under special circumstances, to take other precautionary measures than to continue on her course, until it is seen that there is risk of collision, when it becomes the duty of the vessel having the right of way to take such additional measures as the circumstances require. The law forbids any relaxation of the rule that requires, in the face of impending danger, that each vessel shall take such suitable measures to avert it as are within her power, without reference to the original right of way of either.1 In order to prevent confusion and the fatal results that would often arise if both vessels were to undertake the duty of avoiding each other, the rules impose upon one of them, primarily, the whole duty of taking active measures to keep out of the way and require the other to keep her course. In selecting the method of keeping out of the way, it is the duty of the vessel required to do so to take into consideration all the circumstances of the situation, the speed of both vessels, and any other facts that tend to make the situation dangerous. It is no less the duty of the vessel having the right of way to continue on her course, and she has no right to change either her direction or her rate of speed to the other's prejudice, especially after the other's maneuvers are known, unless there are circumstances that make such a change imperative.2 Where a vessel, bound by rule to keep out of the way of another on her starboard hand, signals her intention to pursue a certain course, she is not relieved thereby from complying with the requirements of the rule, and an assenting The Baltimore, 34 Fed. R. 660; The Britannia, 34 Fed. R. 546; The Greenpoint, 31 Fed. R. 231; The America, 37 Fed. R. 813; The Fanwood, 28 Fed. R. 373; The Frisia, 28 Fed. R. 249; The Bay Queen, 27 Fed. R. 813; The Columbia, 25 Fed. R. 844; The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270; The Baltimore, 34 Fed. R. 660; |