Слике страница
PDF
ePub

as she had reason to apprehend danger,' or that she did not take such measures to avoid collision as the exigencies of the situation and good seamanship required.

Sec. 83. In narrow channels.-The international rules provide that: "In narrow channels every steam-vessel shall, where it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fair-way or mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel." 2

The rules for the navigation of the Great Lakes provide that: "In all narrow channels where there is a current, and in the rivers Saint Mary, Saint Clair, Detroit, Niagara and Saint Lawrence, when two steamers are meeting, the descending steamer shall have the right of way, and shall, before the vessels shall have arrived within the distance of one-half mile of each other, give the signal necessary to indicate which side she elects to take."

"In all channels less than five hundred feet in width, no steam-vessel shall pass another going in the same direction unless the steam-vessel ahead be disabled or signify her willingness that the steam-vessel astern shall pass, when the steam-vessel astern may pass, subject, however, to the other rules applicable to such a situation. And where steam-vessels proceeding in opposite directions are about to meet in such channels, both such vessels shall be slowed down to a moderate speed, according to the circumstances." "

Where a steamer is passing through a narrow passage,

1 The Cement Rock, 38 Fed. R. 764; The Catskill, 38 Fed. R. 367.

In narrow channels.-The rule that a vessel going with the tide or current through a narrow channel has the right of way, and that an ascending vessel is bound to wait until the descending vessel is safely through, is not applicable when the descending vessel has several available channels. The City of Springfield, 26 Fed. R. 158.

Under the inspectors' rules a tug with a tow descending the Ohio river and passing through a narrow channel has the right of way, and an ascending boat must remain below until the descending vessel has passed. The Rescue, 24 Fed. R. 44.

223 U. S. Stat. at L. 442, art. 21; 26 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 25.

3 Rules for the navigation of the Great Lakes, rules 24 and 25.

where the presence of other vessels may reasonably be expected, it is her duty to proceed with the utmost circumspection, not only to be better enabled to avoid collision, but to avoid danger from passing too near other vessels liable to be encountered.' The ordinary rules of navigation applicable to places having ample sea-room are not at all times applicable to vessels navigating in narrow and dangerous channels; and where the rules cannot be followed with exactness, the vessel must do the best the circumstances of the situation permit. It is her duty to pay due regard to all the dangers of navigation and to any special circumstances that may exist rendering a departure from the general rules necessary and proper. Under ordinary circumstances it is the duty of vessels to keep to that side of the channel on the starboard hand, and any departure therefrom will only be permitted under special circumstances warranting the same.3 Excessive speed in narrow channels: It is negligence in a steamer to navigate a narrow, crowded stream other than at a slow rate of speed.*

1 The Kate Irving, 2 Fed. R. 919; The Minnie, 20 Fed. R. 543.

2 The Negaunee, 20 Fed. R. 918; The Santiago de Cuba, 5 Fed. R. 369; The Blue Bonnet, 10 Fed. R. 150; Miller v. The Argonaut and The J. C. Ingram, 37 Fed. R. 910.

3 In the case of The Mary Shaw, 6 Fed. R. 918, the court held that there was no local custom in the channels of the Patapsco river, and in the Chesapeake bay at its mouth, for large vessels descending the channels to take the easterly side, and that the establishment of such a custom, not being called for by any necessity, is to be deprecated as a dangerous departure from the settled rules of navigation.

In the case of Scotts Greys v. The Santiago de Cuba, 5 Fed. R. 269, it was held that where two

steamships approached each other on the same side of a narrow, curving channel, across which a flood-tide was running, one vessel being deeply laden and coming with the tide, the other light and stemming it, and at the point where it seemed probable they would meet they could not pass without danger, it was the duty of the light vessel to have slowed down until the other had passed the dangerous place, and was liable for resulting damages in not having done so, and in having attempted to run across the track of the laden ship when they were in dangerous proximity. The Scotts Greys v. The Santiago de Cuba, 19 Fed. R. 213.

4 The Buckeye, 9 Fed. R. 666. In this case the court held that it was

Sec. 84. Sudden sheer. It is the duty of steamers meeting, overtaking or passing to keep at a sufficient distance from each other so as to be safe from the emergencies that are liable to arise at any time in the navigation of vessels. The effect of wind, tide, currents, suction, and the various influences by which vessels are deflected from their course, is so uncertain and capricious, that common prudence requires a sufficient distance apart to be maintained to avoid possible injury from the movements of the other, which in every ship are more or less uncertain, and must be from the nature of the forces with which she contends. It is negligence to ap

negligence for any craft to navigate the Chicago river between Main-street bridge and Allen's slip, during the season of navigation when the stream was crowded with other craft, either moving or moored to the bank, at a greater rate of speed than three miles an hour.

A steamer is bound to slacken her speed when approaching another vessel in a narrow channel, and nine miles an hour under such circumstances is negligence. The Blenheim, 14 Fed. R. 797.

Where a steamer, overtaking another just leaving her pier and not straightened up on her course, in a narrow channel with barely sufficient water to float her, proceeds at full speed with the intention of passing, she was held at fault. The City of Macon, 51 Fed. R. 949.

Navigating Hell Gate.- Where large vessels attempt to pass each other in the easterly channel of Hell Gate, each, on the interchange of signals, must keep to its side of the channel. The Mary McWilliams, 47 Fed. R. 333.

[blocks in formation]

1 Where a steam-tug was going out of New York bay and was overtaken by a steamship, which passing so close caused a strong suction by the action of her wheel, causing the tug to suddenly sheer and collide with her, the court held that the collision was caused by failure of the steamer to pass at sufficient distance to free the tug from the influence of the other's passage through the water, and the steamer was liable in damages. The City of Brocton, 37 Fed. R. 897; 42 Fed. R. 928.

In the case of The Alexander Folsom, 52 Fed. R. 403, a steamer passing down Lake George met a steamer with two barges in tow,

Where one of the barges of a tow the latter having their canvass

proach so near another vessel in motion that there is danger from her movements, or so near as to endanger her by the movements of the approaching vessel.'

Sec. 85. Departure from the rules. The statutory rules of navigation are imperative, and admit of no option or choice. If subject to the caprice or election of navigators, they would not only be of little value but worse than useless. As Judge Hughes says: "If the statutory rules of navigation were only optionally binding, we should be launched upon an unbounded sea of inquiry in every collision case, without rudder or compass, and be at the mercy of all the fogs and mists that would be made to envelop the plainest case, not only from conflicting evidence as to the facts, but from the hopelessly conflicting speculations and hypotheses of witnesses and experts, as to what ought to or might have been done before, during and after the event, the statutory regulations that have been wisely and charitably devised for the governance of mariners furnish an admirable chart by which the courts may disentangle themselves from conflicting testimony and speculation and arrive at just conclusions in collision cases."

A large proportion of the collisions occurring on navigable waters are the result of failure to comply with the rules of navigation. It oftener happens that collisions follow from a too loose observance than from a too strict adherence to them.

In construing the provisions of the statute for preventing collisions at sea, courts always bear in mind that the navigation rules were adopted to save life and property, and

set, but not drawing to any extent, all three relying on the motive power of their steamer, Where passing the channel was about one hundred and eighty feet wide, and a distance of about sixty feet was left between the passing vessels. The descending steamer suddenly

sheered to starboard and collided
with one of the barges. It was
held that neither the ascending
steamer nor her tow was in fault.
1 The Osceola, 30 Fed. R. 383.
2 The Clara Davidson, 24 Fed. R.
763.

vessels are never permitted to justify a plain error in maneuvering, by invoking a general rule, when it clearly appears that the case falls within an exception to it. Where the ordinary rules of navigation are clearly inapplicable, and special circumstances exist rendering a departure necessary to avoid immediate danger, the rule must be modified to meet the exigencies of the case, and it is the duty of the vessel to depart from the general rule when no other method of securing the desired end is expedient.' This exception to the general rule, required by special circumstances, is recognized in article 23 of the rules of 1885, and by article 27 of the rules of 1890,2 wherein provision is made that, "In obeying and construing these rules, due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger." The statutory rules of navigation so well embody the results of long experience and practical seamanship that the cases where a ship is required to disobey a positive rule, and is chargeable for failure to do so, are very rare, and seldom, if ever, occur. In all such cases the burden of proof is upon the party seeking to enforce the liability, and he must show the prudence of such a course, and that the omitted maneuver would have prevented the collision had it been adopted. Neglect to comply with the rules of navigation is itself a fault; and if collision ensues it is incumbent on the delinquent vessel, in order to escape liability, to show clearly that the neglect to comply with their requirements in no way contributed to the result. To justify a departure it must appear that the ordinary rules of navigation are insufficient for the occasion, and the proof must be clear and unequivo

The Sunny Side, 1 Otto, 208; The Santiago de Cuba, 14 Phila. 574; The Santa Claus, Olc. Adm. 428.

223 U. S. Stat. at L. 442; 26 U. S. Stat. at L. 320; Rule 27 for the Navigation of the Great Lakes.

3 Farwell v. The John H. Starrin, 2 Fed. R. 100; The George E. Starr, 47 Fed. R. 749; The Clement, 2 Curt. 363.

4 The City of New York, 15 Fed. R. 624; 8 Blatch. 194; The America. 37 Fed. R. 813.

« ПретходнаНастави »