signal on the part of the other does not relieve the latter from holding her course; and the former must, notwithstanding such assenting signal, keep out of the way of the latter.1 Where the fault, primarily, is on the part of the vessel required to keep out of the way, the other having the right of way will not be held in fault except on a preponderance of proof that she did not take reasonable measures to avoid collision as soon as she had reason to apprehend danger.2 Under this rule, if a collision occurs by reason of the failure of the vessel whose duty it is to hold her course to do so, the obligation rests upon her to show sufficient excuse for a departure from the rules, if she desires to avoid the consequences attending her unlawful act. A vessel has no right to assume that another which she meets will act in any other manner than that directed by the rules, and it is no justification by a vessel in fault to show that her error was committed upon an assumed movement of the other, in violation of the rules, which movement was not made. is it a justification on the part of a vessel whose duty it is to avoid another, to show that a miscalculation was made as to the force of wind or current that lessened the distance between them, and tended to bring about a collision. It being her duty to keep out of the way, she is bound to keep at such distance that neither winds nor current can interfere," and is liable for any miscalculation as to the force of The Admiral, 39 Fed. R. 574; The Columbia, 29 Fed. R. 716. 2 The Cement Rock, 38 Fed. R. 764: Meyers Excursion & Nav. Co. v. The Emma Kate Ross, 41 Fed. R. 826. Where two steamships are on crossing courses, the vessel having the other on her port hand is not in fault for keeping her wheel steady nor for slackening her speed, when her whistles are not Nor answered and the approaching vessel is seen to be swinging as though to cross her bow. The Waverly, 41 Fed. R. 607. 3 The Corsica, 9 Wall. 630; The Chesapeake, 5 Blatch. 411. 4 The Hudson, 14 Fed. R. 489. 5 The Franz Siegel, 14 Blatch. 480; The Nevada, 3 Fed. R. 928; The City of Chester, 11 Fed. R. 924; The Hansa, 2 Ben. 299; The Standard, 23 Fed. R. 207. either. Where a steamer has the right of way, and another approaches so as to involve risk of collision, the approaching steamer has no right to attempt to pass starboard to starboard unless there is an imperative necessity for so doing, if by doing so she causes a change of course or speed by the one having the right of way, until she has obtained the consent of the other and a complete understanding is reached.1 1 The E. H. Coffin, 16 Blatch. 421; The Clarion, 27 Fed. R. 128; The Alaska, 33 Fed. R. 527; The City of Albany, 34 Fed. R. 812; The Columbia, 10 Wall. 246; The E. A. Packer, 20 Fed. R. 327; The Brothers, 30 Fed. R. 75; The America, 37 Fed. R. 813. In the case of The Ocean S. S. Co. v. The Talisman, 36 Fed. R. 600, a steamer was coming into North river from the sea, meeting a tug and tow going down the river, on courses not crossing. The steamer, to approach her slip, at tempted to cross the bows of the tow, colliding with it. It was held that the steamer was at fault in attempting to cross the other's bows. Where a steamship was going up North river in the day-time and met a ferry-boat about five points off her starboard bow, on a converging course, it was held that so long as the steamer knew the ferryboat was on a converging course, and the steamer continued its course until she was unable to meet the emergency, she was at fault. The Eider, 37 Fed. R. 903. Where two steamers met at sea on crossing courses, the T., seeing the red light of the G., ported her helm and continued under a port helm. The G. starboarded and shortly thereafter showed her green light. It was held that the T. was not in fault for continuing under a port helm, as she had the right to assume that the G. would correct her error. The Thingvalla, 42 Fed. R. 331. See, also, The Lagonda, 42 Fed. R. 304; The Iberia, 40 Fed. R. 893; The St. Johns, 42 Fed. R. 75. Two steam - vessels were on courses bearing from two to three points forward of each other's beams, and proceeding at nearly the same speed. It was held that in such a situation they were not overtaking vessels, but were crossing, within the meaning of the rules, and the one having the other on her starboard hand was bound to keep out of the way. The Aurania, 29 Fed. R. 98. A collision occurred at night between two steamers, the V. and the L., the L. being an incoming and the V. an outgoing steamer, on the Patapsco river. The L. signaled her intention of taking the southerly side of the channel, which was on her portside. The V. gave no assenting signal, and was unable, by reason of the channel being obstructed by other vessels, from keeping out of the way of the L. It was heid that the L was in fault, first, Sec. 67. One steamer overtaking another.-The international rules provide that, "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, every vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel. Every vessel coming up with another vessel from any direction more than two points abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel which she is overtaking that at night she would be unable to see either of that vessel's side-lights, shall be deemed to be an overtaking vessel, and no subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of the rules, or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaking vessel until she is finally past and clear. As by day the overtaking vessel cannot always know with certainty whether she is forward of or abaft this direction from the other vessel, she should, if in doubt, assume that she is an overtaking vessel and keep out of the way."1 for putting her helm to starboard and taking the side of the channel which was on her port, without getting an assenting signal from the V.; also, in not keeping out of the way of the V. The Virginia and The Louise, 49 Fed. R. 84. See, also, The Columbia, 29 Fed. R. 716; The Servia, 30 Fed. R. 502; The Pequot, 30 Fed. R. 839. Where a steamer was about nine hundred feet out from a slip from which another steamer was starting, the latter being on the starboard hand of the former, and on crossing courses, it was held that the former was bound to keep out of the way, and was liable for failure to do so. Greenman v. The Steamboat Narragansett, 4 Fed. R. 244. The tug M., with three boats lashed to her sides, was coming out of the Kills into New York bay, and came into collision with the tow of another tug, the S., bound down the bay. Prior to colliding the S. gave two whistles, indicating that she would pass to the left, to which the M. replied with two blasts. The S. did not change her course after signaling, but continued in a straight line. The M. changed her course in accordance with her whistles, and stopped and backed when she saw collision imminent. Both boats were held at fault, the S., because having the M. on her starboard hand, she did not change her course to correspond with her whistles, and to keep out of the way of the other; the M. for not changing her course earlier. The Standard, 23 Fed. R. 207. 126 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 24; 23 U. S. Stat. at L. 442, art. 20; International Rules 1885; Rule 22 for the Great Lakes. "A vessel which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to such last-mentioned vessel a white light or a flare-up light. The white light required to be shown by this article may be fixed and carried in a lantern, but in such case the lantern shall be so constructed, fitted and secured that it shall throw an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of twelve points of the compass, namely, for six points from right aft on each side of the vessel so as to be visible at a distance of at least one mile. Such light shall be carried as nearly as practicable on the same level as the side-lights." Sec. 68. Overtaking vessel defined. The act of 1890 defines an overtaking ship as "every vessel coming up with another vessel from any direction more than two points abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel which she is overtaking that at night she would be unable to see either of that vessel's side-lights." This definition had been adopted by the federal courts prior to its embodiment in the statute the range of the colored side-lights being taken as the dividing line determining whether a vessel was overtaking or crossing the course of the one carrying the lights. If bearing less than two points. abaft the beam they were considered crossing, and if bearing more than two points abaft the beam they were considered overtaking vessels, and are so defined by the present rules.3 1 Art. 10, International Rules 1890; The Aurania and The Republic, 29 Fed. R. 98; The Commodore Jones, 25 Fed. R. 506; The Narragansett, 10 Blatch. 475; Kennedy v. The American Steamboat Co., 12 R. I. 23; The W. H. Clark, 5 Biss. 295. 226 U. S. Stat. at L. 442, art. 24. 3 The Aurania, 29 Fed. R. 98; The State of Alabama, 17 Fed. R. 847. A ship is an overtaking and not a crossing vessel within the meaning of the rules although there is a difference of three points in the course of the two vessels. Aldrich v. Clausen, 42 Hun (N. Y.), 473. In the case of The Venetian, 29 Fed. R. 460, where a ferry-boat started out of her slip astern of, a vessel passing on to her own slip, the court held that any subsequent position of the ferry, as where she attempted to cross the bow of the Sec. 69. Duties of overtaking vessels.- Where two ves sels are running in the same direction, one astern of the other, the law imposes upon the one following the obligation of exercising a greater degree of care to avoid collision than is imposed upon the other; the statute requiring every vessel, whether steamship or sailing-vessel, when overtaking another, to keep out of the way of the one overtaken.' The duty of an overtaking vessel to keep out of the way is especially imperative when it is a steamer, as it has control over its motive power, and can promptly and accurately govern her own movements. The duty of avoiding the leading ship being imposed by law upon the one following, in case of collision the burden of proof is cast upon the latter to show the prudence of her own conduct, the negligence of the one leading, and that the collision was not caused by fault on her own part. The duties imposed by law upon vessels are increased in proportion to their ability to keep out of the way; as where the overtaking ship is large and powerful, of great speed, and equipped with appliances for quickly regulating her movements, and the leading vessel is small, slow and less readily handled, the superiority of the overtaking vessel increases her obligations in like proportion. Under the rules no subsequent alteration of the position of the vessels can make the one following other than an over steamer, did not alter her relations to the steamer, and that she was still an overtaking, and not a crossing, vessel. 123 U. S. Stat. at L. 442, arts. 20, 11; 26 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, arts. 10, 24; The Governor, Abb. Adm. 108; The Rhode Island, Abb. Adm. 100; The Bay Queen, 27 Fed. R. 813; The Columbia, 10 Wall. 246; McNally v. Myer, 5 Ben. 239; The Helen Hasbrouck, 29 Fed. R. 463; The Great Republic, 23 Wall. 20; The Sylvan Grove, 29 Fed. R. 336; The Ellen, 4 Blatch. 107; The Venetian, 29 Fed. R. 460; The Cephalonia, 29 Fed. R. 332; The Dentz, 29 Fed. R. 525; The City of Brocton, 37 Fed. R. 897; The Eider, 37 Fed. R. 903. 2 The Ellen Howgate v. The Illinois, 6 Rep. 40; 13 Phila. 470. 3 The Continental, 31 Fed. R. 166; The George A. Brandreth, 3 Fed. R. 414; The Governor, Abb. Adm. 108; Simpson v. Spreckles, 13 Fed. R. 93. 4 The Great Republic, 23 Wall. 20. |