petty details of its navigation, especially where the duties of the situation are so exacting as not to permit of divided attention, as are the duties of a lookout.

It may be stated as a rule that no person is a competent lookout whose other duties are such that he cannot give his constant attention to the requirements of that position." The supreme court by a recent decision holds that, to charge a vessel with fault because it requires or permits its lookout to perform other services, it must be shown by the party alleging the fault that such added employment interferes with his duties as lookout. The size of the vessel, its equipment, the nature of its occupation, its situation and construction, are elements the court will take into consideration in determining the sufficiency of the lookout. Where from the size and construction of the ship a single lookout is not sufficient to observe the approach of vessels from any

1The Tillie, 13 Blatch. 514; Bill v. Smith, 39 Conn. 206; The Ottawa, 3 Wall. 268; The New York v. Rea, 18 How. 223; The City of New York, 8 Blatch. 194; Larsen v. The Myrtle, 44 Fed. R. 779; The Express, 55 Fed. R. 340; The George W. Childs, 67 Fed. R. 269; Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 539, 548; Irons v. The Coe F. Young, 45 Fed. R. 505.

2 The Golden Grove, 13 Fed. R. 674; The Nautique, 44 Fed. R. 399; The Northern Indiana, 3 Blatch. 92; The Ant, 10 Fed. R. 294; The Morning Star, 4 Biss. 62; The Bessie Morris, 13 Fed. R. 397; The Gazelle, 33 Fed. R. 301; The Hausa, 5 Ben. 501; The Twenty-one Friends, 33 Fed. R. 190; Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. The John Adams, 1 Cliff. 404; Eber B. Ward v. The Ogdensburg, 1 Newb. 139; The Amboy, 22 Fed. R. 555.

3 The Nacooche, 137 U. S. 330.

Tugs dispensing with a separate lookout must take the risk of being held in fault for an accident which might have been prevented if a lookout had been on duty, although the pilot may ordinarily be sufficient. Cianciminos Tow & Transp. Co. v. The Ripple, 41 Fed. R. 63.

When the only persons on deck of a sailing-vessel in a fog were the lookout and the man at the wheel, the latter a man of little experience, the lookout, in addition to his duties as lookout, having general charge of the navigation of the vessel, sounding its fog-horn and other duties, while the master and nine men were below, the sailing-vessel was held in fault for the collision, because it was substantially without a lookout. The Energy, 42 Fed. R. 301.

4 The Morning Light, 2 Wall. 550; The Blossom, Olc. 188.

direction, others must be provided.' Where the station of the lookout is one from which the view is obstructed, it is not a compliance with the law. It is not at all times sufficient that a lookout be stationed in the forward part of the ship. It is equally as necessary that watch be kept on the sides and stern when in a situation where there is a known or probable presence of others,3 although ordinarily a lookout stationed where he has an unobstructed view in the direction the vessel is moving is sufficient.*

Sec. 174. Where stationed.—To comply with the law the lookout must be stationed in a situation where he has an unobstructed view; the usual position being at the forward end of the vessel when it is taking a forward direction, and at the stern when backing. The position should not be so elevated that details in observation are likely to be omitted; nor should the station be one subject to obscurations or interruptions in the navigation of the ship; but one where clear vision is possible, and where there is easy com

1 Kennedy v. The Sarmatian, 2 not be attributed to the want of a Fed. R. 911.

2 New York, etc. Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia Steam Nav. Co., 22 How. 461.

3 The Nevada, 106 U. S. 154; Kennedy v. The Sarmatian, 2 Fed. R. 911.

The Colon, 8 Ben. 512; Dunstan v. The Kirkland, 3 Hughes, 641; The Morning Star, 4 Biss. 62; McFarland v. Selby Smelting & Lead Co., 17 Fed. R. 253.

In The Mabel Cimeaux, 24 Fed. R. 490, it was held that it was not a fault that the master of a steamer was not on the hurricane-deck, his usual place of duty, he being at dinner at the time of the collision, and the mate was on watch.

In The Thingvalla, 42 Fed. R. 331, it was held that collision could

lookout when the vessel had a mast-head lookout, and the other vessel was seen at a sufficient distance to enable her to be avoided had it maintained its course.

Where there were three experienced seamen on the poop-deck, having an unobstructed view all around, it was held that the absence of a special lookout did not contribute to the collision. The Ping-On v. Blethen, 11 Fed. R. 607. 5 New York, etc. Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia & Savannah Steam Nav. Co., 22 How. 461; The Java, 14 Blatch. 524; The St. Nicholas, 49 Fed. R. 671.

6 Erwin v. Neversink Steamboat Co., 23 Hun (N. Y.), 573; 88 N. Y. 184.

munication with the officer in charge. The international rule providing that "a ship which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to such last-mentioned ship a white light or a flare-up light"2 contemplates the keeping of a sufficient watch over the stern and sides of the vessel to enable it to comply with the rule. As Justice Waite, in the circuit court of the district of Maryland,3 said: "The office of a lookout is to watch for and report danger from whatever quarter it may be expected. It can come from behind; he must look there enough to see when it is approaching and give the necessary warning. He must be stationed where, under the circumstances of the situation, he can best perform all his duties, and if one cannot do all that is required another must be added. Ordinarily on a sailing-vessel in open waters, one is enough for all purposes, and his station should be at or near the bow; but whether there or elsewhere, it is clear the rule contemplates the keeping of a sufficient watch over the stern to enable the vessel to perform her duty, and if the situation is such that one lookout is not enough there must be more." 4

When the nature of the weather is such as to call for especial vigilance, and to render the usual number of lookouts insufficient, ordinary prudence requires that others be added. Reference must be had to all the circumstances in determining the number necessary.

1 Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How. 586; Haney v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 23 How. 287; Chamberlain v. Wood, 21 How. 548; Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends, 1 Bond, 459.

2 Inter. Reg. 1885, art. 11; International Rules 1890, art. 10.

3 Kennedy v. Steamer Sarmatian, 2 Fed. R. 911; The Kirkland, 3 Hughes, 641; The Colon, 8 Ben. 512. 4 The Nevada, 106 U. S. 154; 17 Blatch. 122.

5 Jensen v. The Steamship Belgenland, 5 Fed. R. 86.

In The Johns Hopkins, 13 Fed. R. 185, where, besides a man stationed forward as a lookout, there were two other persons on watch in the wheel-house, it was held to be sufficient.

In The Ping-On v. Blethen, 11 Fed. R. 607, there were three capable and experienced seamen on the poop-deck with an unobstructed view in all directions. Held, that

Sec. 175. Failure to observe approaching vessel. The law not only requires a ship to be provided with competent lookouts, but it requires them to be vigilant and observant of their duties. Vigilance as well as experience is required. of a lookout, and if he is inattentive to his duty it is not a sufficient excuse to say that he was competent to perform the duties required of him,' when it is shown that the approach of a vessel might have been observed in time to have avoided collision had the lookout been watchful. The fact that it was not seen is evidence of such a lack of care as will render the vessel liable. The fact being shown that an approaching vessel was not observed, under circumstances when it could have been seen, the law will presume negligence.

3

The fact that one vessel discovers the other sooner than the latter is aware of its presence is not material in determining which is at fault, if the latter makes the discovery

the absence of a lookout did not contribute to the collision.

Where a vessel had two experienced seamen stationed as lookouts, in the "eyes of the ship," it was held to be a sufficient compliance with the rule. Bradley v. The John Pridgeon, Jr., 38 Fed. R. 261.

The pilot-house of a steamer is not a proper place for a lookout, especially where he is the only one on duty. Haney v. The Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 23 How. 287; The Northern Indiana, 3 Blatch. 92.

In The City of Philadelphia v. Gavagnin, 62 Fed. R. 617, it was held that the duty of keeping a lookout was not complied with, when only the officer in charge of a tug, with a tow, kept a lookout from the pilot-house. The pilothouse of a tug is not a proper location for a lookout to be stationed.

1 The Sunny Side, 1 Otto, 208.

2 The Atlas, 34 Fed. R. 543; The Roman, 12 Fed. R. 219; Jensen v. The Belgenland, 5 Fed. R. 86; 9 Fed. R. 126; The Samuel H. Crawford, 6 Fed. R. 906; The Margaret v. The C. Whiting, 3 Fed. R. 870; The Nessmore, 50 Fed. R. 616; The Waverly, 41 Fed. R. 607; The Helena, 34 Fed. R. 425; The Schmidt v. The Reading, 43 Fed. R. 815; The J. H. Starin, 2 Fed. R. 100; The Abby Ingalls, 12 Fed. R. 217; The Saratoga, 37 Fed. R. 119; The Nellie Clark, 50 Fed. R. 585; The Nahor, 9 Fed. R. 213; The Java, 14 Blatch. 524; Haney v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 23 How. 287.

3 The Pavonia, 26 Fed. R. 106; The Alabama, 10 Fed. R. 394; The Roman, 12 Fed. R. 219; The State of Texas, 20 Fed. R. 254; The Samuel H. Crawford, 6 Fed. R. 906.

of the other's approach in season to adopt all possible precautions, and does adopt them.1 Vigilance is a comparative term. The degree of attention which might be considered sufficient under some circumstances might be wholly insufficient under others. Increased probability of danger requires a corresponding increase of care and attention to avoid it. Where the probability of danger is great, a like degree of vigilance is required.2

Sec. 176. Absence of lookout excusable. A lookout is but one of many other equally prudent requirements to guard against danger, and where his absence does not in any way contribute to the collision, where it could not have been guarded against by a lookout, no liability can be charged for such omission; but it is only where a lookout