all injuries that ordinary prudence can avoid.1 Old and weak vessels ought not to expose themselves to the hazard of ordinary contact with vessels moored alongside without giving notice of their condition. The exterior vessel in mooring alongside may presume that the other is of a construction suitable to withstand the ordinary and usual contact of vessels at wharves, in the absence of notice to the contrary; but where notice of the unfitness of the interior vessel is given, it becomes the duty of the other to take proper means to relieve it from the usual strain, and when unable to do so it becomes its duty to go elsewhere.2 Failing to notify a vessel mooring alongside of any reason known to the one interior why it is dangerous to do so, it will be presumed to have given its consent.3 A vessel has no right to moor alongside another if by doing so the risk of the latter is increased. Notification of danger by the interior vessel is required not only where there is but one exterior, but also where others seek to moor alongside. Any interior vessel has the right to object to additional moorings if the situation of the objecting vessel thereby becomes more hazardous. On such notification an objecting vessel receiving injuries has a right of action against the exterior ship causing the injury, even though 1 The Harry, 15 Fed. R. 161; Van Tine v. The Lake, 2 Wall. Jr. 52. In the case of The John F. Winslow, 50 Fed. R. 478, it was held to be negligence to land a heavy vessel in a strong tideway outside of a light vessel lawfully moored at a dock, and it is at the risk of the vessel so attempting to moor. by the peculiar bows of the vessel next alongside. Held, that the tug was not liable for the injury, it being the duty of the interior vessel to see that no vessel moored alongside having a construction liable to do it injury. 4 The Pangburn v. The Gunn, 3 Fed. R. 35. In this case a sailing 2 The N. B. Starbuck, 29 Fed. R. vessel during a squall endeavored 797. 3 The Chas. R. Stone, 9 Ben. 182. In this case a tug was caused to sag against an exterior vessel moored at a pier by the action of the tide, and an interior vessel was injured to moor alongside another at a pier, and by so doing both broke away and collided with a canalboat lying opposite. The exterior vessel was held liable. See, also, Pope v. Seckworth, 47 Fed. R. 830. there may be any number of intermediate vessels, if the cause of action arises from the conduct of the one exterior, and not from the misconduct of any of the others.' Whenever after mooring alongside the situation of the interior vessel becomes hazardous, and demand is made for the others to move, it becomes their duty to do so, or to take effective means to prevent injury. In the absence of notification it is the duty of the exterior vessel, when moored in an exposed situation where it is liable to damage the other by pounding against it, to use reasonable diligence in watching for approaching danger, and to take effective and prompt measures to guard against it. Where there is no necessity for mooring alongside, and there is sufficient opportunity for mooring elsewhere, a vessel mooring unnecessarily near another is liable for the damages resulting from such proximity. A vessel mooring alongside another without its permission does so at its own risk, the interior one owing it no duty to see that its position is a safe one. In assuming its position it does so with all its concomitant surroundings and liabilities.* A vessel crowding into a slip where there is not sufficient room, and between vessels, is prima facie liable for inju ries received or inflicted.3 1 The Moxey, Abb. Adm. 73. In the case of The Moonlight, 50 Fed. R. 478, it was held negligence for a large and heavy vessel to attempt to land outside a light one in a strong tideway. was danger of damage on their part by grounding at low-tide; no attention was paid to the warning. The vessels grounded, and the canalboat sustained damages by reason of the other careening against it. 2 The Lillian M. Vigus, 22 Fed. R. The schooner was held in damages 747. 3 The Greenpoint, 18 Fed. R. 186. The John Cottrell, 34 Fed. R. 907. In the case of Call v. The Addie Schlaefer, 37 Fed. R. 382, a schooner was moored alongside a canal-boat, which was unloading at a dock. The canal-boat informed those aboard the schooner that there for negligently mooring in a situation liable to injure another. 5 The John W. Hall, 13 Fed. R. 394. In The Adelina v. The Gulf of Tarento, 65 Fed. R. 622, a steamer entering a dock already occupied by a vessel, the dock being so small that at low-water the steamer careened against the vessel, was held at fault. That the harbor-master Sec. 99. Mooring in an unlawful place or exposed situation. A vessel mooring in an unlawful place or exposed situation does so at its peril, and must take the consequences fairly resulting from its own conduct. The fact of its being directed it to enter there was held no justification. In the case of The America, a vessel of much larger size moored alongside a smaller one at a dock at a place where the water was not of sufficient depth to accommodate the larger one, which grounded with the low-tide and listed towards the interior and smaller vessel, thereby damaging it. The court held the one mooring alongside at fault, and liable for the damages incurred. Myers v. The America, 38 Fed. R. 256. See, also, The Addie Schlaefer, 37 Fed. R. 382. A canal-boat M., and sailing-vessel S., were lying at the same dock, the latter about five feet astern of the other, with her in-shore anchor hanging at her bow. By the receding of the tide the anchor caught under the bilge of the canal boat, on the starboard quarter, causing a leak from which she sank in a few hours. There being no opportunity for the canal-boat to get away, the court found the sailing-vessel guilty of negligence for not properly stowing her anchor, and liable for the damages done. Price v. The Sontag, 40 Fed. R. 174. In the case of The Behera, 6 Fed. R. 400, where a barge was forced into a dock at high-water between two large vessels and was injured by the vessels careening towards each other at low-tide, crushing it, the barge was held to be at fault, and not entitled to recover, because it knew the danger to which it was exposed and made no efforts to remove therefrom. Where those in charge of a steamship, for their own convenience hauled a canal-boat into a position where it was injured by the careening of the steamer when the tide fell, the canal-boat being used to coal the steamer, and being unable to extricate itself from the situation, it was held that the vessel was liable in damages for not removing the canal-boat before the tide fell and before the danger arose. The Ponca, 19 Fed. R. 223. In the case of The Energy, 10 Ben. 158, two steamboats were moored at a pier alongside each other, with other vessels moored astern; all being laid up for the winter. The owner of a couple of barges desiring to moor them further up the slip moored them over night alongside the two steamers, being prevented by ice from taking them to their quarters farther up the slip. It was generally known that at flood-tide, with the wind in an easterly direction, ice was liable to drive into the slip with great force. During the night the ice jammed into the slip, carrying away the two barges, and driving the two steamers to which they were moored against the vessels astern of them, injuring one of the steamers. It was held that the in an unlawful place will not, however, excuse another from using all reasonable precautions for avoiding it, consistent with its own safety. It is negligence for a vessel to moor so near the entrance to a harbor that shipping entering in stress of weather is liable to become embarrassed by its presence; and where the usual difficulties of navigation make the entrance to a harbor a dangerous undertaking, it is especially reprehensible for a vessel to moor in a situation tending to increase those difficulties. A vessel moored in a place safe, except as the same is rendered otherwise by a passing or entering vessel, is not barred in its right of action, although it appears that such mooring was without permission, where the injury complained of is inflicted by another also a trespasser; nor is a vessel mooring under authority from the owner of the dock excused from neglect for failure to use ordinary precautions, although the vessel injured has no lawful right to be there. Sec. 100. Obstructing entrance to slip.- A public slip is a public highway, and no single vessel has a right to obstruct its entry to the public disadvantage. An entering vessel has a right to use such measures as may be necessary to enable it to reach its berth, consistent with the rights of others, and it is the duty of arriving or departing vessels to regulate their movements to conform to those of one attempting to enter. Where the operations of such entry necessitate the obstruction of the entrance of a slip, it should be for as brief a space as possible; and when at night, sufficient notice should be given of the maneuvers being executed and of the obstructions that exist. Where necessity requires a vessel entering to check its movements, it may barges were improperly moored, and that they were liable for the damages which might reasonably be expected from their negligent mooring. 1 Bequette v. People's Transp. Co., 2 Oreg. 200; Moore v. Mass, 14 Ill. 106; The City of Lynn, 11 Fed. R. 339; Cummins v. Spruance, 4 Harr. 315; Strout v. Foster, 1 How. 89; Knowlton v. Sanford, 32 Me. 148. 2 The Jeremiah Godfrey, 17 Fed. R. 738. 3 The Fulda, 31 Fed. R. 351; The extend a line across a slip; the obstruction should only be temporary. Sec. 101. Vessels projecting beyond pier or dock.— The right to moor at a public dock or wharf is a right that is as fully protected by the law as is the right to navigate the waters of a public channel; but the right to the use of piers, docks and wharves must be exercised with a due regard to the rights of entering vessels, as must the use of navigable channels be enjoyed with due regard to the rights of vessels moored therein; and any unnecessary encroachment upon the channel, which imperils entering craft or vessels lawfully navigating near the entrance to slips is unlawful.1 In the absence of local regulations the ordinary use of a pier or dock extending into navigable waters contemplates the occupation of sufficient space at its outer extremity as well as its sides for the accommodation of vessels mooring, and it is in recognition of this rule that vessels are prohibited from navigating so near the ends of docks and piers as to render contact with shipping moored there possible. The mere fact that a vessel lying at a pier allows a portion of its hull or rigging to extend out into the stream beyond the end of the dock is not, if unaccompanied by other circumstances of negligence, a sufficient cause for holding it in damages for collision with a passing boat. But where the situation is such that the projecting vessel improperly obstructs access of the colliding vessel to its dock, or egress therefrom, or in some way complicates or impedes its movements, it is liable for South Brooklyn, 50 Fed. R. 588; A tug has no right to unnecessarily maneuver at the entrance of a slip so long as to obstruct the free passage of others; and where seasonable warning was given of its approach, it was held that a ferry-boat accustomed to enter there was justified in assuming that the tug would get out of the way, and was not liable where all efforts possible were made by the ferry to avoid the other after collision became imminent. The West Brooklyn, 49 Fed. R. 688. 1 The St. Lawrence, 19 Fed. R. 328; The South Brooklyn, 50 Fed. R. 588. |