quires reasonable care on the part of the ship-owner; such care as is usual in similar cases, and has been found by experience to be sufficient for the preservation of life and property. Where the defect is latent and cannot with due diligence and proper inspection be detected, no liability arises for an injury therefrom. The owner of a vessel does not undertake either with those employed on his ship, or with the public, to guaranty his ship's appliances to be absolutely perfect, nor does the law require him to insure their perfection. He is obliged to use all reasonable care and prudence to provide suitable appliances, and his obligation is satisfied by the exercise of reasonable diligence in providing such appliances, and reasonable care in observing that they are kept in repair.

Sec. 180. Insufficient manning.- A ship may become liable for damages arising from insufficiency of help for her practical navigation as well as for a violation of any other rule of navigation. It is the duty of the ship-master to provide a sufficient number of men, having proper nautical skill, for the practical working of the ship, and this duty is as imperative as the providing of other appliances and equipments suitable for the vessel for the trade in which it is engaged. Where the collision does not occur from the lack of help, nor from the lack of skill employed, as in other cases, no liability arises. The insufficiency of manning must contribute to produce the collision in order to render the ship liable. The fact that the officer or person employed is from its breaking, the steamer was held at fault. The Riversdale, 53 Fed. R. 286.

1 The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 196. 2 The France, 59 Fed. R. 479; The Maharajah, 40 Fed. R. 784.

3 The Coleman, 1 Brown, 456; The Young America, 1 Brown, 549; The Colorado, 1 Otto, 692; The Continental, 14 Wall. 345.

wheelsman on deck, with no lookout, is not sufficiently manned. The Nabob, 1 Brown, 115.

4 The Young America, 1 Brown, 549.

Failure to have a licensed engineer, where this did not contribute to the collision, will not prevent a recovery where the vessel is not otherwise at fault. The VanA tug with only the mate and couver, 2 Saw. 381.

not licensed to act, where a license is required by law, is not of itself sufficient to create liability for insufficient manning, where the skill and experience of such person is in question, where his acts do not contribute to the collision.1

Sec. 181. Negligence of officers.- Vessels engaged in commerce are liable for damages occasioned by the want of care and skill on the part of those in charge of them. It is the duty of the ship-owner not only to properly equip the vessel with fittings suitable for its safe and usual method of navigation, but also to provide it with competent and skilful officers, of sufficient experience and judgment to perform their duties intelligently under all circumstances, and in conformity with established nautical rules and methods. It is also the duty of the ship-owners or master to provide competent subordinate officers to take command in the absence of their superiors. Error of judgment is no defense where it is the result of incompetency. It is the duty of the owners to see that only competent officers are provided. Not only are the owners liable for the incompetency of the officers and insufficiency of the crew, but the ship and its master are liable.3

Sec. 182. Liability of the master.- The party injured by collision may not only look to the vessel inflicting the damages to the extent of its actual value, and to its owners

1 The Gratitude v. The Eutaw, 14 Fed. R. 479; The Hunter No. 2, 22 Fed. R. 795; Haley v. Earle, 30 N. Y. 208.

If the number of officers and crew of a vessel on duty when a collision occurs is sufficient for its proper navigation, it is immaterial that she is short of her full complement of seamen and officers. La Normandie, 58 Fed. R. 427.

Where the owner of a tug was master, and placed at the wheel an

inexperienced and unlicensed person, when the boat was in a difficult and dangerous situation, and injury resulting in death followed, the tug was held liable. Killien v. Hyde, 63 Fed. R. 172.

2 St. John v. Paine, 10 How. 557; The Continental, 14 Wall. 345. 3 The Lotty, Olc. 329.

The fact that the master of a tug had no license was held to be no presumption of negligence contributing to the collision, where

to the extent of their interest in the vessel, but he may hold the master of the vessel liable. The master is not only responsible for his own conduct but also for the acts of his crew. Where, however, it is shown that the master takes all precaution that a man of ordinary prudence and skill exercising reasonable forethought would take to avoid danger, although some possible precaution not taken might have avoided the collision, neither he nor the owners are liable, the law only requiring the use of ordinary care under all the circumstances.2

Sec. 183. Liability of seamen.- Where there is no wilful fault on the part of seamen there is no personal liability on their part below the rank of master, either for damage received by their own ship or cargo, or for loss sustained by the other vessel, by reason of the fault of the vessel to which they belong; the personal liability in such instances being confined to the owners and master. Subordinates are not responsible to third persons for neglect of duty in the gen. eral course of their employment. Where damage to ship or cargo is wilful, the individual liability of the various members of the crew for the result of their wilful acts attaches, and they are liable to the same extent that other persons are responsible for their individual acts.

Sec. 184. Fellow-servants.- The master of a vessel, when in command and directing its movements, is treated as a vice-principal of the owner, and is not a fellow-servant with the other members of the crew. In admiralty the negligence of a fellow-servant affords no grounds for recovery

the master of the tow was in charge of both, and was competent, and the master of the tug skilfully performed the duties he was required to perform. The Charlotte, 51 Fed. R. 455.

1 The Lotty, Olc. 329.

2 The Lindsay, 5 L. R. P. C. 338. 3 Story on Agency, 314, 317: The City of New York, 25 Fed. R. 149.

4 The Transfer No. 4, 61 Fed. R. 364; Railroad Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377; Miles v. The Servia, 44 Fed. R. 943; The Islands, 28 Fed. R. 478.

1

either against the ship or its owner. The master of a vessel when in command sustains a different relation to the ship and its owners than do the other members of the ship's company. He is the personal representative of the owners, and in their stead has authority to obligate the ship and is personally responsible for its navigation. When the master is absent, or conditions arise where the mate or next in command assumes and exercises the duties of the master, such subordinate officer may for the time be considered to represent the owner and is not a fellow-servant.

The fact that a fellow-workman or member of a ship's crew occupies a different grade of service in the common employment of the ship, or that one has a higher position or authority over another, does not necessarily make an exception to the general rule of non-liability of the ship and owner for the negligence of a fellow-servant. And where the master is engaged in doing the labor of a co-employee and is not acting in the capacity of master, no reason is apparent why he should not be considered as a fellow-servant with those with whom the services are performed.3

1 The Frank & Willie, 45 Fed. R. 494; The Sachem, 42 Fed. R. 66; The Titan, 23 Fed. R. 413.

2 Coyne v. Railway Co., 133 U. S. 370; Steamship Co. v. Merchant, 133 U. S. 375; Anderson v. Winston, 31 Fed. R. 528; Quinn v. New Jersey Lighter Co., 23 Fed. R. 363; The Queen, 40 Fed. R. 694.

3 Quinn v. New Jersey Lighter Co., 23 Fed. R. 363.

In Anderson v. The Ashebrook, 44 Fed. R. 124, it was held that the fact that the libelant's fellow-servants were negligent did not prevent a recovery where negligence on the part of the ship was shown. In Crawford v. The Miles City, 38 Fed. R. 47, it was held that a grain trimmer employed by a contractor

to assist in trimming the grain with which a vessel was loaded was not the fellow-servant of a sailor belonging to the ship.

In The Titan, 23 Fed. R. 413, it was held that a deck-hand who was not on duty and had no part in the navigation of the vessel was not a fellow-servant with a pilot who was in command at the time and through whose negligence the damage was received.

In The Caroline, 30 Fed. R. 199, it was held that one of a gang of longshoremen engaged in discharging a ship's cargo was not a fellow-servant with the ship's officers. Per contra, see The Furnessia, 30 Fed. R. 878.

In The Egyptian Monarch, 36

Sec. 185. Seaworthiness. The presumption of law is that every vessel engaged in navigation is staunch, strong and well able to meet the strains usually incident to the navigation of ships of its class.

It is the duty of those navigating vessels of weak and inferior construction to refrain from voluntarily placing them in a situation where they are unable to withstand the ordinary strains incident to navigation.'

It is no defense for an offending vessel to show that the other was old and weak, unless it is shown that it was in a situation where it might reasonably have expected contact with others. Even under such circumstances it is no justification to show the age and weakness of the injured ship, where the colliding vessel strikes with unnecessary force.2

It is as much the duty of the ship-owner to see that his vessel is seaworthy as it is that it shall comply with the rules of navigation.3

Sec. 186. Burden of proof.- To entitle a recovery in collision cases it is not sufficient that negligence is shown on the part of the colliding vessel. The libelant must go further and show that due precaution and care on his part was taken. Where the proof fails to show prudence on the part of the libelant, full recovery cannot be had. The court will

Fed. R. 773, it was held that a second mate who superintended the reeling in of a hawser was a fellowservant with a seaman engaged in the turning of the reel.

Where a canal-boat was injured by being thrown against a dock by the swells of a passing boat, it appearing that the canal-boat was old and weak and unable to stand

1 The N. B. Starbuck, 29 Fed. R. the strains ordinarily required of 797.

2 The Quaker City, 19 Fed. R. 141; Inman v. Funk, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 538.

3 The Washington, 3 Blatch. 276; The Caledonia, 50 Fed. R. 567; Cook & S. v. Parkham, 24 Ala. 21; The Continental, 14 Wall. 345; The Gerrard Stuyvesant, 8 Ben. 183.

boats of its class, it was held that recovery could only be had for half the damages sustained. De Lelle v. The Atalanta, 34 Fed. R. 918.

4 The Columbus, 1 Abb. Adm. 384; The Nacooche, 28 Fed. R. 462; The Haverton, 31 Fed. R. 563; The Clara, 102 U. S. 200; McCabe v. Old Do