be held in fault, though it be not affirmatively shown that the omission did contribute to the collision.25

6789. Necessity for maintenance of 6792. Lookouts astern not generally

§6789. Necessity for Maintenance of Lookouts.-While the general navigation rules do not in express terms define lookouts, designate their positions, or prescribe their qualifications, the necessity for their maintenance is recognized by a provision in all the rules that nothing therein shall exonerate a vessel from the consequences of any neglect to keep a proper lookout.1 The matter of lookouts is governed by the rules of the general maritime law, and therein it is made the duty of a vessel. navigating waters where other vessels are likely to be encountered to keep a trustworthy person employed as a lookout; and the vessel is held liable for all accidents caused by a default in this regard. This rule

*The Zouave, 90 Fed. Rep. 440. 'Article 29, International Navigation Rules; Article 29, Inland Rivers Rules; Rule 28, Great Lakes Rules; Rule 26, Red River of the North &c. Rules.

The J. C. Ames, 121 Fed. Rep. 918; The Colorado, 117 Fed. Rep. 796; The Columbia, 92 Fed. Rep. 936; The Gate City, 90 Fed. Rep. 314; The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. (U. S.) 448, The Haverton, 31 Fed. Rep. 563; The Monticello, 15 Fed. Rep. 474; Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How. (U. S.) 586; The Niagara County, 25 Fed. Rep. 208; The Oregon, 92 Fed. Rep. 1021; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 167; af'g s. c. 88 Fed. Rep. 324; The Pavonia, 23 Fed. Rep. 204; The Pavonia, 29 Fed. Rep. 206; The Racilia, 25 Fed. Rep. 111; The Rose dale, 92 Fed. Rep. 1021; s. c. 35 C. C. 4. 167; aff'g s. c. 88 Fed. Rep. 324; The Roslyn, 22 Fed. Rep. 687; The Saginaw, 84 Fed. Rep. 705; The St. Nicholas, 49 Fed. Rep. 671 (collision with drawbridge); The A. W. Thompson, 39 Fed. Rep. 115; In re Brooklyn &c. Ferry Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 1021; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 167: aff'g s. c. 88 Fed. Rep. 324; In re Bridgeport

Steamboat Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 1021; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 167; aff'g s. c. 88 Fed. Rep. 324; The Manitoba, 2 Flip. (U. S.) 241; The Ottowa, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 268; The St. John v. Paine, 10 How. (U. S.) 557; The Zodiac, 9 Ben. (U. S.) 171; "Mary" Tug Co. v. British India Steam Nav. Co., [1897] A. C. 351; s. c. 66 L. J. P. C. (N. S.) 92; The Nabob, Brown Adm. (U. S.) 115. A vessel will be held at fault for a collision where her lookout was absent from his post for a large part of the critical portion of the time during which the vessel was approaching the other, and was unable to observe many of the most essential occurrences,especially where the master was not in command of the deck, but was himself at the wheel: The City of Augusta, 80 Fed. Rep. 297; s. c. 50 U. S. App. 39; 25 C. C. A. 430. Owners of a lighter libeling a steamship for negligence in leaving the lighter heavily loaded without any watchman, are not bound to prove the particular agent causing the capsizing of the lighter, where it is shown that injurious force is naturally to be expected, is ordinarily

is applicable to all classes of boats, without regard to size. The duty belongs to any vessel capable of injuring another vessel. Lookouts, always necessary, are specially required where passage around a vessel ahead is to be undertaken; and the vessel ahead is entitled to presume that such a lookout is maintained by the overtaking vessel. Failure of a steamer to keep a vigilant lookout is especially reprehensible where she is known to respond tardily to her wheel.'

8

§ 6790. Efficiency of Lookout. The lookout must be a irustworthy person of suitable experience, able to note the fact that an approaching vessel is not under control of her steering-apparatus." He should be a person of good vision; and one who needs a night glass to enable him to descry lights in time to avoid a collision is unsuitable for the position.10 An officer of the deck having charge of the navigation of a vessel is not a proper lookout;11 and such is the case with the helmsman.12

provided against, and would probably have been averted had the ship taken the proper precautions of providing a watchman for the lighter after the ship's crew had loaded the lighter to its full capacity in the absence of the lightermen: The Iniziativa, 57 Fed. Rep. 311; s. c. 6 C. C. A. 346.

The American, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 159 (ferry-boat); The Hackensack, 5 Fed. Rep. 121 (ferry-boat); The W. H. Beaman, 45 Fed. Rep. 125 (tug); The Raritan, 32 Fed. Rep. 847 (tow).

5

The Marion, 56 Fed. Rep. 271.

The Bernicia, 122 Fed. Rep. 886; The City of Merida, 24 Fed. Rep. 229.

268; The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. (U. S.) 443; The Excelsior, 102 Fed. Rep. 656; The Pottsville, 12 Fed. Rep. 631.

9

The Protector, 113 Fed. Rep. 868; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 492; The Golden Age, 113 Fed. Rep. 868; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 492.

10 The Avon, 22 Fed. Rep. 905.

"The Philadelphia v. Gavagnin, 62 Fed. Rep. 617; s. c. 10 C. C. A. 552; Larsen v. The Myrtle, 44 Fed. Rep. 779; The Ottowa, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 268.

12 The Captain Weber, 89 Fed. Rep. 957; s. c. 32 C. C. A. 452; Killien v. Hyde, 63 Fed. Rep. 172 (master of tug, who was pilot, left wheel in charge of a young deck-hand not licensed); McCormick V. The Gladys, 35 Fed. Rep. 160; The Pilot Boy, 115 Fed. Rep. 873; The Brothers, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 104; s. c. 1 Chic. Leg. N. 10; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.) 444; s. c. 13 L. ed. 1058; Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How. (U. S.) 586; The Ottowa, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 269; s. c. 18 L. ed. 165 (proper lookouts are persons other than the officers of the deck, and they should be stationed on the forward part of the vessel); The Nabob, Brown Adm. (U. S.) 115. "To navigate with a steam-tug or any other vessel the North or East River in the vicinity of New York City, where vessels are passing and reThe Ottowa, 3 Wall. (U. S.) passing, crossing and recrossing, in

The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. Rep. 167; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 11; 1 C. C. A. 219. A tug having dumpingscows in tow is not at fault for a collision between one of such scows and a steamship through the latter's failure to observe a proper lookout, because such tug fails to slacken her speed earlier, where the steamship was at sufficient distance to avoid the tow; as such tug could not foresee that the steamship would not comply with her duty in keeping out of the way, as she had the tug and tow on her starboard hand: The El Rio, 66 Fed. Rep. 360.

The Agnes Manning, 44 Fed. Rep. 110.

86791. Position of Lookout.-A lookout must be stationed in the forward part of the vessel and in the position best adapted to descry vessels approaching at the earliest moment.13 Thus, it has been held that a steamer was at fault for a collision at the approach to the Virginia capes, where many vessels lying low upon the water are to be expected, in keeping her lookout at night eight feet above the deck and nearly thirty feet above the water, and forty feet in the rear of her high-pointed stem, instead of in the bow close to the stem.14 The pilot-house is not the proper place to station a lookout.15

§ 6792. Lookouts Astern Not Generally Required.-A lookout astern is generally not required against vessels approaching from the rear and sailing in the same direction.16 The maritime law requires a lookout astern only where the vessel is backing or manœuvring in harbors.17

$6793. Lookout on Tow.-A lookout should be maintained on a tow,18 particularly where it projects beyond the bow of the tug because of greater length.10

§ 6794. Absence of Lookout must have Contributed to the Collision. Under the rules,20 a vessel is liable for a collision to which the want of a sufficient lookout has contributed. The mere absence, incompetency or improper position of the lookout will not render the vessel liable unless this fact was responsible for the collision.21 In other words, the deficiencies in these respects are regarded rather as evidence of negligence and indicative of lax management in the navigation of the vessel than as distinct faults in themselves, and are not sufficient to condemn the vessel in the absence of evidence that they contributed to the collision.2

22

and a collision occurred with a vessel in tow of a tug coming out from the piers. It was held that the propeller had no proper lookout; since such a float alongside must be deemed part of the propeller, and it was her duty to have a lookout upon it: The Pennsylvania, 9 Ben. (U. S.) 536.

20 See ante, § 6789.

21 The Arthur M. Palmer, 115 Fed. Rep. 417; The City of Macon, 85 Fed. Rep. 236; The Eider, 37 Fed. Rep. 903; The Empire, 63 Fed. Rep. 476; Erie R. Co. v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 410; The George Murray, 22 Fed. Rep. 117; The Iberia, 117 Fed. Rep. 718; The Mabel Comeaux, 24 Fed. Rep. 490; The Victory, 63 Fed. Rep. 631; modifying s. c. 68 Fed. Rep. 395; The

Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 185; s. c. 26 L. ed. 716; The Blue Jacket v. Tacoma Mill Co., 144 U. S. 371; s. c. 36 L. ed. 469; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 711; The Farragut, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 334; s. c. 19 L. ed. 946; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186; The Victory, 168 U. S. 410; s. c. 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149; 42 L. ed. 519. In an action for damages caused by a collision, evidence that the lookout of one of plaintiff's vessels was absent does not require "conclusive" evidence to the effect that his absence made no difference in the result, in order to permit a recovery: New York Harbor &c. Co. v. New York &c. R. Co., 76 Hun (N. Y.) 258; s. c. 59 N. Y. St. Rep. 125; 27 N. Y. Supp. 745.

22 The Oregon, 158 U. S. 188; s. c. 39 L. ed. 943; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804.

$6796. When a Vessel is Close-Hauled.-Courts have not adopted the strict definition of the lexicographers, that a vessel is close-hauled when she has her sails set for sailing as close to the wind as possible, but allow the use of the term to designate a vessel sailing as close to the wind as will permit the best progress to windward, though not as near the wind as she could lie.1 The term includes a vessel hove to and making both headway and leeway.2

$6797. Rules where Both Vessels are Close-Hauled.-Where both on the same tack, the vessel to leeward being close-hauled and the vessel to windward having the wind two points free, and their courses tend to converge, the vessel to windward must give way. In other cases where the vessels are on the same tack the vessel to the windward must give way. Where the vessels are on different tacks, the vessel which is close-hauled on the port tack must keep out of the way of the vessel which is close-hauled on the starboard tack; and this is the case where a sail-vessel, while close-hauled on the starboard tack, sights another sail-vessel on the same tack, and goes about, and, after gathering headway, while close-hauled on the port tack, comes into collision with the

'Chadwick v. Dublin, 6 El. & Bl. 771. Ordinarily a vessel is not regarded as close-hauled where she has the wind two points free: The Rolf, 47 Fed. Rep. 220; s. c. aff'd, 50 Fed. Rep. 478. A vessel is closehauled when sailing within six and a half points to the wind: The Queen Elizabeth, 100 Fed. Rep. 874. The Ada A. Kennedy, 33 Fed. Rep. 623: The Ontario, 2 Low. Dec. (U.S.) 40; The Transit, 3 Ben. (U. S.) 192; Swift v. Brownell, Holmes (". S.) 467.

The Clement, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 363. The Commodore Jones, 25 Fed. Rep. 506; The Non Pareille, 33 Fed. Rep. 524.

Article 17 (b) International Rules; Article 17 (b) Inland River and Harbor Rules; Rule 16 (b) Rules for the Great Lakes; Rule 17 (b) Red River of the North Rules. See also, The Mina A. Read, 30 Fed. Rep. 205; The Ann Caroline, 2 Wall, (U. S.) 538; The Ada A. Kennedy, 33 Fed. Rep. 623.