not modified in the case of a steam-vessel meeting a pleasure yacht, although the latter is able to alter her course with little trouble; and it has been held that character as a sailing-vessel was not lost by the fact that the sailing-vessel carried machinery operated by a naphtha or gasoline engine for use as an auxiliary power. A steam-vessel must, if the circumstances of the case permit, avoid crossing ahead of a sailing-vessel." This rule is most frequently applied to vessels in the open sea. In narrow channels or restricted harbors, much depends upon the character of the channel, and there is more frequent application of the rule allowing a departure from rules under special circumstances in order to avoid danger. In these narrow channels the steam-vessel must, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or midchannel which lies on the starboard side of the vessel."

§ 6815. Further of Duty of Steam-Vessel to Avoid Sailing-Vessel -Presumption of Negligence.-It is the duty of a steam-vessel to maintain a sufficient lookout to note the proximity and course of sailing-vessels; and such precautions must be adopted as will prevent collision immediately upon sighting the sailing-vessel. Where a collision seems inevitable if the steam-vessel proceeds, it is the duty of the steamer to slacken her speed or stop or reverse.10 So, the steamer

not apply to the propeller having four or five barges in tow, meeting a number of sailing-vessels pursuing a different course with a free wind. Such a case would seem to fall within the 24th rule of special circumstances allowing departure from the general rules: The Marion W. Page, 36 Fed. Rep. 329.

3

4

The Medusa, 46 Fed. Rep. 303.

The Captain Weber, 89 Fed. Rep. 957; s. c. 32 C. C. A. 452.

Article 22 International Navigation Rules. See The Stranger, 44 Fed. Rep. 815.

Article 27 International Navigation Rules. See The I. C. Harris, 29 Fed. Rep. 926.

Article 25 International Navigation Rules. See The Energia, 66 Fed. Rep. 604; s. c. 13 C. C. A. 653. $ Green 8 v. Compagnia Generale Italiana di Nav., 82 Fed. Rep. 490; The Latona v. McAller, 3 Wash. Ter. 332; s. c. 19 Pac. Rep. 131; The Carroll, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 302; The Falcon, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 75; The New Orleans, 106 U. S. 13. A bark and a steamer collided on the open sea in the night-time. The bark had

proper lights burning and kept her course, while the steamer's single lookout failed to see the bark, although a passenger on the steamer saw her from his state-room, about a mile distant. It was held that these facts, in addition to the presumption of fault on the part of the steamer arising from the fact of a collision, justified a finding that the steamer was in fault: The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355,

9

The Ardanrose, 115 Fed. Rep. 1010 (mile and a half); The Energia, 56 Fed. Rep. 124 (one and onehalf miles away); The Schmidt v. The Reading, 43 Fed. Rep. 398; s. c. aff'd, 43 Fed. Rep. 815 (one and one-half miles); The Ancon v. Thompson, 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 334; s. c. 17 Fed. Rep. 742 (mile and a half).

10 Article 23 International Navigation Rules. See The Alaska, 22 Fed. Rep. 548; The Jesse W. Knight v. The Wm. R. McCabe, 45 Fed. Rep. 590; The Penland, 23 Fed. Rep. 551; The Rochester, 84 Fed. Rep. 365; s. c. 53 U. S. App. 700; 28 C. C. A. 428; The State of Alabama, 17 Fed.

should stop or reverse if necessary where the lights of the sailingvessel fluctuate and her course appears doubtful, and not proceed until the course of such vessel can be definitely ascertained." But a short delay of the steamer in reversing on the sudden reappearance of the green light of a schooner which the steamer so shaped her course as to avoid, has been held not to make the steamer in fault if there, was no probability that instant reversal could have prevented the collision, it then being an act in extremis.12

§6816. Steamer should Allow Wide Berth.-Reasonable prudence in navigation and due regard for the safety of life and property on water demand that steamers required by the rules to keep out of the way, where nothing prevents, shall keep away by a reasonably safe margin; and it has been often decided that a disregard of this obligation without excuse, resulting in collision, shall be held a fault.13 This rule requires the steamer to allow sufficient margin for passing and for the usual and necessary variance in the course of the sailingvessel through yawing or leeway.1 The approach should not be so

Rep. 847; Shaw v. The Reading & The David Smith, 38 Fed. Rep. 269. A steamer sighting a barkentine on her starboard bow on a clear, dark night, with no lights visible, is at fault in not reversing or slackening speed until the course of the barkentine can be clearly ascertained, and then in not keeping out of her way; and in such case the loss by their collision will be divided in the absence of satisfactory proof of the suficiency of the barkentine's lights: The Portland, 49 Fed. Rep. 172; s. c. 7 U. S. App. 20; 1 C. C. A. 224. It is the duty of a steamer on first discovering, when only about four lengths away, a schooner which she is approaching on a course converging at nearly right angles, without any change of course, at once to reverse her engine, and it is not sufficient merely to port and stop her engine: The Schmidt v. The Reading, 43 Fed. Rep. 398; s. c. aff'd, 43 Fed. Rep. 815.

133.

"The Westover, 5 Hughes (U. S.)

The Roanoke, 45 Fed. Rep. 905. So, a schooner in tow will not be held liable for lack of the best management within the brief time, probably not over fifteen seconds, before a collision with a lighter

which suddenly appeared not four hundred feet distant, while they were in a narrow passage of Hell Gate: The Josephine B., 45 Fed. Rep. 909.

13 The Chatham, 52 Fed. Rep. 396; The Carroll Boys, 80 Fed. Rep. 414; s. c. 25 C. C. A. 515; 51 U. S. App. 94; The City of Springfield, 29 Fed. Rep. 923; The City of Truro, 35 Fed. Rep. 317; The George Murray, 22 Fed. Rep. 117; The Jesse W. Knight, 45 Fed. Rep. 590; The Paola, 92 Fed. Rep. 943; The Laura V. Rose, 28 Fed. Rep. 104; The Raritan, 32 Fed. Rep. 847; Hanly V. Packet Co., 23 How. (U. S.) 287; The Falcon, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 76. A steamer does not comply with the rule requiring her to keep out of the way of a sailing-vessel entering a channel under such circumstances that she must accomplish a sharp turn and needs considerable sea room, in waiting until the schooner takes her course through the channel, and putting on full steam so as to reach the entrance when she is performing the most difficult part of her movement: The Iron Chief, 63 Fed. Rep. 289; s. c. 11 C. C. A. 196; rev'g s. c. 53 Fed. Rep. 507.

14 The City of St. Augustine, 68 Fed. Rep. 393; aff'g s. c. 52 Fed. Rep. 237.

close as to confuse a sailing-vessel and cause a wrong manœuvre on her part to avoid collision.15

17

§ 6817. Duty of Sailing-Vessel to Beat Out her Tack.-The rule making it the duty of a sailing-vessel to keep her course when collision with a steam-vessel is likely, requires a sailing-vessel to beat out her tack;16 and it is her duty to do so until the danger of collision is imminent, and then it is proper to make the effort which she thinks best to avoid the danger. The sailing-vessel is not required to remain in stays or overreach longer than usual when these measures are not apparently necessary to avoid a collision with a steamer;18 nor is she required to beat out her tack where such a course is impracticable or fraught with danger to herself, or calculated to mislead or embarrass the steam-vessel.20

§ 6818. Sailing-Vessel must Keep her Course.-The rule requiring a steamer to keep out of the way of a sailing-vessel is no more imperative than the reciprocal rule making it the duty of the sailingvessel to keep her course and thus avoid embarrassing the navigation of the steamer. Where there is an unnecessary deviation from her course by the sailing-vessel and a collision results, the steamer will not be liable therefor.21 This rule does not apply where the change of

15 The Maggie S. Hart, 38 Fed. Rep. 765; The E. Luckenbach, 93 Fed. Rep. 841; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 628; The Sante, 48 Fed. Rep. 126; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214.

10 The A. W. Thompson, 39 Fed. Rep. 115; The Philadelphian, 61 Fed. Rep. 862; The Relief, 63 Fed. Rep. 169; The Rosedale, 22 Fed. Rep. 737; The Nereius, 3 Ben. (U. S.) 238; The Illinois, 103 U. S. 298. 17 The Excelsior v. The Bruce, 38 Fed. Rep. 271.

19 The W. C. Redfield, 4 Ben. (U. S.) 227; The Renovator, 30 Fed. Rep. 194.

The Pilot Boy, 115 Fed. Rep. 873; The Plymouth, 26 Fed. Rep. 879; The Portia, 55 Fed. Rep. 1017; The Relief, 63 Fed. Rep. 169; The Roanoake, 45 Fed. Rep. 905; The Saale, 63 Fed. Rep. 478; s. c. 11 C. C. A. 302; The St. John's, 34 Fed. Rep. 814; The Transfer No. 4, 44 Fed. Rep. 144; The Wm. R. McCabe, 45 Fed. Rep. 590; The Ellen Holgate v. The Illinois, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 470; The Adriatic, 107 U. S. 512; The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S. 371; s. c. 36 L. ed. 469; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 711; The A. P. Crammer, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 507; The Farnley, 5 Hughes (U.

29 The John L. Hasbrouck, 93 U. S.) 298; The Illinois, 103 U. S. 298.

S. 403.

20 The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. Rep. 167; aff'g s. c. 45 Fed. Rep. 505.

The Alene, 79 Fed. Rep. 976; s. c. 25 C. C. A. 264; 51, U. S. App. 128; Carlisle v. The Pomona, 35 Fed. Rep. 921; aff'g s. c. 34 Fed. Rep. 919; The Clara Davidson v. The Virginia, 24 Fed. Rep. 763; The Europa, 116 Fed. Rep. 696; The Kanawha, 28 Fed. Rep. 329; McAvoy v. The Mignon, 35 Fed. Rep. 319; The Normandie, 43 Fed. Rep. 151;

A schooner and tug colliding in Long Island Sound at night, were held both in fault, the schooner for changing her course, and luffing up into the wind, probably through the inattention of the captain or mate or both, who were the only persons on board, and who had been long on duty without sufficient sleep; and the tug for going for at least half a mile at right angles to the course of the schooner, and then changing course in order to

course occurred long before the risk of collision became apparent ;22 nor to immediate departure which does not contribute to the collision. Where a schooner violates the rule requiring her to keep her course, it is no defense that the officers of the steamer were unlicensed and kept no lookout as required by law, where neither of these facts. contributed to the collision. The steamer in these cases has the right to rely on the ability of the sailing-vessel to take care of herself and maintain her course." 25

§6819. Course of Sailing-Vessel may be Changed to Avoid Immediate Danger. The rule requiring a sailing-vessel to keep her course is subject to another navigation rule which requires the navigator, in construing any of the rules of navigation, to do so with due regard for all the dangers of navigation which, in special circumstances, may render a departure from the rules necessary to avoid immediate danger;26 and a departure from her course will be justifiable where made to avoid immediate danger of collision;27 but in all such. cases, it must be clearly shown that the change was reasonably calcu

lated to avoid the threatened danger of collision.28 The general law of negligence imposes on the sailing-vessel the duty to use all means in her power to avert danger even under a condition of affairs unlawfully produced by the negligence of the steamer.29. But it is always the duty of the sailing-vessel to keep her course; and even if this amounts to an error of judgment under the special circumstances of the case, it will not be regarded as a fault when it was an act resolved upon in extremis.30 So, a sailing-vessel will not be regarded as in fault for failing to change her course, where there was not sufficient time after the danger became apparent to make the change.31 A steamer will be held solely in fault for a collision with a sailing-vessel the primary cause of which was the endeavor of the steamer to compel the sailing-vessel to change her course, which she refused to do, since it was her right and duty under the rules to keep her course.32

31

§ 6820. Defense that Sailing-Vessel Changed her Course is Viewed with Suspicion.-In all cases of collision between a sailing-vessel and a steam-vessel, the law raises the presumption of fault against the steamer, and she has the burden of proof to show the contrary.33 The courts view with especial suspicion the invariably asserted defense that the collision between the steamer and the sailing-vessel was caused by the latter's change of course, and such a defense must be clearly

28 The Elizabeth Jones, 112 U. S. 514. But a schooner which changes her course on approaching a steamer seen from her starboard bow, in such manner as to bring about a collision, and which irregularly exhibits a torchlight, cannot be excused as acting in extremis where she has previously been in fault by not having her green light visible, but obscured by her fore staysail; and she is liable for the collision where from time to time the green light of the schooner becomes visible, and the steamer changes her heading to port, by stopping her engine and putting her wheel hard to starboard, and reversal would have prevented such change and caused a worse collision: The Circassia, 55 Fed. Rep. 113.

29 The General, 82 Fed. Rep. 830; The Massassagua, 124 Fed. Rep. 97; The Riverdale, 53 Fed. Rep. 286. In the case of a collision between a schooner and a steamer at night, it

was held that, although the schooner had no lookout except her master, who was on the quarter-deck, yet, as the steamer was seasonably seen and kept in view, and the schooner was kept on her course, there was no fault in this particular: The City of New Bedford, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 17.

30 The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330; s. c. 34 L. ed. 687; 11 Supt. Ct. Rep. 122.

31 The Alene, 116 Fed. Rep. 57. 32 Medero v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 122 Fed. Rep. 1018.

33 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Reddig, 24 Ill. App. 260; The Ardanrose, 115 Fed. Rep. 1010; The George L. Garlick, 88 Fed. Rep. 553; The Olympia, 61 Fed. Rep. 120; The J. D. Peters, 42 Fed. Rep. 269; The Pilot Boy. 115 Fed. Rep. 873; The Richmond, 114 Fed. Rep. 208; The Seneca, 47 Fed. Rep. 87; The Stuyvesant, 88 Fed. Rep. 553.