Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

sel will act lawfully, and will hold its course where required to do so, and that it will pursue the customary track of vessels holding her course, and that it will regulate its actions so as to avoid danger rather than to incur it.1 A steamer may presume, in regulating her conduct in a narrow channel, that a sailing-vessel will not intentionally run into danger or into a situation where it must become disabled or embarrassed in its movements by reason of the natural difficulties of navigation. The mere fact of collision between a steamer and a sailing-vessel being shown, unaccompanied by circumstances exonerating it, a presumption at once arises that the steamer is at fault, to be relieved from which it must show affirmatively the prudence of its own conduct and the fault of the other,3- the burden of proof resting upon the steamer.1

2

New York, etc. S. S. Co. v. Rumball, 21 How. 372; The George Murray, 22 Fed. R. 117; The Oregon v. Rocco, 18 How. 570; The Colorado, 91 U. S. 692; The Fannie, 11 Wall. 238; The Pennland, 23 Fed. R. 551. 1The Harrisburg, 9 Fed. R. 169; The Kanawha, 28 Fed. R. 329; The Free State, 91 U. S. 200.

In the case of The Agnes Manning, 44 Fed. R. 110, in a collision between a steamer and a sailingvessel, where the evidence was conflicting as to the sailing-vessel departing from the rules, held, the presumption of law that it complied with the rules would prevail over conflicting evidence to the contrary.

2 The Washington Irving, Abb. Adm. 336.

3 The Wenona, 8 Blatch. 499.

4 Perkins v. The Hercules, 1 Fed. R. 925; The Seneca, 47 Fed. R. 87; The Fannie, 11 Wall. 238; Butterfield v. Boyd, 4 Blatch. 356; Farr v. The Farnley, 1 Fed. R. 631; The Pennland, 23 Fed. R. 551; McGuire v. The Sylvan Glen, 2 Fed. R. 905.

Where a steamer sighted a sailing-vessel at a distance of about three miles on a clear day in midocean, it was held that the steamer was liable in damages for collision without further proof of fault on its part. The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214.

CHAPTER VIII.

COLLISIONS BY VESSELS NOT UNDER WAY.

Sec. 94. Between vessels leaving slip and vessels moored. The busy traffic of harbors often produces situations not provided for by the international rules, and which can only be regulated by the general maritime law or local regulations. When such local regulations are prescribed by municipal ordinances or state laws, all vessels entering the harbor are subject to them so long as they do not conflict with the laws of the United States. The navigation of harbors being of especially dangerous character, the law imposes upon vessels the duty of moving with the utmost caution, especially in the vicinity of docks and piers. The practical necessity for this is manifest; and if a vessel leaves a slip or enters it at such a rate of speed that it cannot avoid a passing vessel it is liable for its negligent conduct, notwithstanding the fact that the other may have passed too near the entrance.' In leaving its slip a vessel is required to act with the utmost caution to avoid contact with or injury to other vessels moored there, and not to move with such haste or disregard of ordinary precautions as to injure others passing or entering. Where the situation of a vessel moored to a dock is such in respect to others moored there that it cannot move without injury to them, ordinary prudence requires it to give ample notification of its intention to move, 1 The Monticello, 15 Fed. R. 474; to see what vessels were approachThe Fulton, 62 Fed. R. 604.

2 The Express, 49 Fed. R. 764.

In The Rio Grande, 38 Fed. R. 849, it was held that where a tug was towing a sailing-vessel out from a slip by a hawser, from behind a covered pier, it was bound

ing, and to give the required signal before proceeding to cross the latter's course, even though it had the right of way, and that the approaching vessel was bound to stop and back as soon as the intent of the other was perceived.

when it becomes the duty of the other to take such precautions as may be necessary to render its situation safe. The fact that a slip is crowded, and that egress is difficult, is not sufficient to prevent a vessel from leaving her moorings, but it must do so with the utmost caution; and it is the duty of an impeding vessel to render such assistance as may be necessary, from its own obstruction, even though it necessitates moving on its part, to facilitate the progress of the other.1

Ordinary prudence requires a vessel leaving a slip to give sufficient warning of her intention, by way of signals, to inform passing vessels that it is about to move out.2

The fact of collision between a moored vessel and one moving being shown, the burden of proof is upon the one moving to show that it was free from fault; and it must repel the presumption of its negligence or suffer the damages incurred.3

Where a vessel is so situated at a dock that it cannot move without danger to others, duty requires it to guard against contact with them by providing and using the customary and proper stay-lines.

1 Duane et al. v. The Emma J. Kennedy, 5 Fed. R. 206; The Molyneaux, 26 Int. Rev. Rec. 38; The City of Augusta, 30 Fed. R. 844.

Two vessels were lying alongside in a slip, and one, desiring to move, notified the other and requested it to cast off its lines. Failing to cast off one of several lines, collision ensued. Held, that the departing vessel was liable for the injury, it being her duty to ascertain that all the lines were cast off.

2 The Eldorado, 47 Fed. R. 71. The City of Augusta, 30 Fed. R. 844; The Brady, 24 Fed. R. 300.

4 Downs v. The Excelsior, 40 Fed. R. 271; The British Empire, 24 Fed. R. 493.

In the case of The Titan, 8 Ben. 7, a tug entering a slip, in which a canal-boat was moored to the dock, was pressed against the side of the latter, and held so firmly by the tide that, in attempting to move, the canal-boat was torn from its moorings and injured. The tug was held liable for placing itself in a position where it could be held against the canal-boat, and for attempting to move out before it had become detached from the other, notwithstanding the fact it had notified the canal-boat of its intention to move, and requested it to strengthen its lines, which it neglected to do.

Where a schooner was unlawfully moored at a dock in a position

Sec. 95. Navigating near piers.- The law imposes upon vessels passing the ends of docks, slips and piers the duty of keeping out in the stream a distance sufficient to avoid injury to vessels moored therein by reason of the agitation of the water, and to avoid vessels entering or emerging therefrom.1

The regulations which require vessels to keep away from the ends of wharves and slips when passing is not intended to relax in the least the obligation resting on vessels emerging therefrom to observe that degree of watchfulness and care the dangerous situation demands. The busy traffic of harbors, the frequency of egress and ingress of vessels to their dock, unite in condemning the practice of navigating near the ends of docks, piers and slips as dangerous and unjustifiable. And where a vessel, in the prosecution of an illegal undertaking, such as navigating across the entrance to slips, in dangerous proximity thereto, places itself in a position where it is not possible for it to avoid another lawfully there, it has no right to complain of damages sustained by it, and is liable for damages inflicted.3

contrary to the rules of the harbor, in a situation where collision would likely follow on the moving of a steamer moored therein, and refusing to move on being asked to do so, the steamer, in attempting to pass out, collided with it, doing some injury. Held, that both were liable; the steamer because of its attempt to move knowing the dangerous situation of the other-its duty being to notify the harbor authorities and have it moved. The sailing-vessel was held liable for mooring in a wrongful situation and in not moving when directed. The Westernland, 24 Fed. R. 703.

The Baltic, 41 Fed. R. 603; The Tiger Lily, 11 Fed. R. 744; The Fanwood, 61 Fed. R. 523; The Chicago, 61 Fed. R. 521; The South

field, 19 Fed. R. 841; The Rhode Island, 24 Fed. R. 295; The Charles H. Seuff, 53 Fed. R. 669.

The Morisania, 13 Blatch. 512. In this case a vessel was properly moored at a pier, and was thrown against another vessel, by which it was damaged, by the swell of a passing steamer. The latter was held at fault for passing at such a rate of speed that it produced a swell, and in such proximity to the dock that vessels lying there would be injured by its displacement

wave.

2 The Relief, Olc. 104; The Active, 22 Fed. R. 175; McFarland v. Selby Smelting Co., 17 Fed. R. 253; The R. H. Williams, 46 Fed. R. 414.

3 The Columbia, 8 Fed. R. 716; The Hattie M. Spraker, 29 Fed. R.

Sec. 96. Between vessels entering slip and vessels moored there.- Where a vessel is moored at a private dock, where others are not permitted to enter, it may rely upon the security of its position, and is not bound to take active

457; The John S. Darcy, 29 Fed. R. reverse, and for navigating dan644. gerously near the pier. The Komuk, 50 Fed. R. 618.

Where a steamer descending the Mississippi river, at New Orleans, injured her rudder and became unmanageable, and collided with a boat lying at a wharf, it was found by the court that the steamer had unnecessarily kept too close to the neighborhood of the moored vessel, and that such needless proximity was the real cause of the injury and not inevitable accident. The Trudeau, 48 Fed. R. 847.

In the case of The Express, 48 Fed. R. 323, a steamer was navigating the narrow channel of Little Hell Gate at night and in a fog. Knowing the existence of a dock situated there, it proceeded without taking precautions to ascertain by lead and line whether it was in the channel or not, and collided with a steamer lying at a well-known dock. Held, that the moving steamer was solely at fault; a fog-bell near the dock having been frequently rung to give notice of the dangerous location.

Where a tug backed out of a slip without heeding the signals of a tug approaching, it was held that the approaching tug, in voluntarily navigating near piers, waived its priority of right of way, and was bound to take notice of vessels emerging, and both were held liable; the one emerging for not observing the approach of the other, and the other for failing to

In the case of The Nettie, The William Orr, The A. C. Hopson, 35 Fed. R. 615, a tug and its tow were held liable for navigating so close to the end of a dock that the tow on a long hawser sheered and collided with a vessel moored at its dock. The tug was held liable for navigating so near the dock as to render danger liable, and the tow for permitting itself to be tied on a line so long as to be dangerous.

In the case of The Venetian, 29 Fed. R. 460, a ferry-boat was moving out of its slip just as a steamer was passing by the entrance to it. As the former reached the entrance of the slip the steamer had passed, so that the ferry-boat was passing astern of it. The latter attempted to go ahead of the steamer and collided with it. Held, that the ferry-boat was an overtaking and not a crossing vessel within the rules, and bound to avoid the other.

Where a steamer moved out of her regular slip in a careful and proper manner after due notice to a couple of canal-boats in the slip of her intention to do so, it was held that the steamer was not liable for damages resulting from so doing. The Express, 49 Fed. R. 764.

In the case of The Hudson City, 38 Fed. R. 446, a ferry-boat started

« EdellinenJatka »