4 tions, cannot be urged as a defense where the defect in the machinery would have been disclosed by a proper inspection and repairs could have been made in time to have avoided the injury. The duty of moving vessels to use due care to avoid collisions with anchored vessels extends to vessels in tow; and such vessels should be steered by means of their own steering-apparatus so as to avoid collision." $6830. Anchor Lights and Watch.-As we have already seen, the navigation laws require an anchored vessel to display lights at night, and prescribe the character of such lights and their position. A sufficient anchor watch must be maintained at night; and an omission in this respect merits the severest condemnation where the night is dark and the vessel is anchored in the path of navigation. Ordinarily a vessel anchored in the proper place, in the daytime and in fair weather, is not expected or legally required to be on the watch and to stand prepared to take measures to avoid vessels under way and having control of their own motions; but under exceptional circumstances, where a vessel under way is subject to special difficulties or embarrassments in her navigation, some care and precaution on the part of the vessel at anchor may become absolutely prudent and necessary that would not otherwise be obligatory; but in all these cases, it is necessary to liability on the part of the anchored vessel that the absence of the lights or watch should be a proximate cause of the collision." § 6831. Anchorage in Improper and Exposed Places. The presumption of fault against the colliding vessel does not arise where 4 The Merchant Prince, [1892] Prob. 179; rev'g s. c. [1892] Prob. 9. Where a collision with an anchored vessel by a vessel going through the long, narrow and shoal channel of the south pass of the Mississippi River was caused by the derangement of the steering-apparatus of the latter, because a nut fell off from a bolt holding the chains by which the tiller was operated; and, although additional and after steering-gear was ready for use, no one was near enough to connect and use it promptly, the failure to keep the steering-gear properly secured, watched, or inspected, or to keep the after steering-gear in readiness for instant use in case of emergency, makes the vessel liable for the dam ages: Churchill v. The Altenower, 39 Fed. Rep. 119. "The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. Rep. 919; The John F. Gaynor, 115 bed. Rep. 382. "See ante, § 6770. See also, The Henry Warner, 29 Fed. Rep. 601; The John H. May, 52 Fed. Rep. 882; The John H. Starin, 122 Fed. Rep. 236; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 600; Le Lion, 84 Fed. Rep. 1011; The Oliver, 22 Fed. Rep. 848. The Clara, 102 U. S. 200; Fristad v. The Premier, 51 Fed. Rep. 766. s Wells v. Armstrong, 29 Fed. Rep. 216. See also, Rich v. HamburgAmerican Packet Co., 117 Fed. Rep. 751; post, § 6834. "Churchill v. The Altenower, 39 Fed. Rep. 112; Chappell v. Bradshaw (Md. App.), 13 Atl. Rep. 50 (no off. rep.). the other vessel was anchored in an unusual and improper place, where her presence was not to be expected, and the moving vessel had no knowledge of her presence in time to avoid the collision.10 A vessel anchoring beyond anchorage grounds and in the path of outgoing and incoming vessels, must take all precautions necessary to make her presence known to passing vessels.11 However, the anchorage at an improper place must have been a proximate cause of the collision; for, if the collision is due solely to want of care in navigation on the part of the colliding vessel, it will be liable though the injured vessel was anchored beyond the anchor limits.12 $6832. Further of Improper Anchorage-In Navigable Channels. -A Federal statute makes it unlawful to anchor vessels in navigable channels in such manner as to prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels.1 The statute has been construed not to require anchorage near the sides of channels of such width as to admit of easy navigation on either side of the anchored vessel.14 14 $6833. Sufficiency of Anchor.-A vessel must be sufficiently anchored with reference to surrounding conditions; and where the circumstances plainly require such a precaution, a second anchor should be lowered where the first anchor is inadequate. 15 In case of a col The Ailsa, 76 Fed. Rep. 868; The Evelyn, 113 Fed. Rep. 1019; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 620; aff'g s. c. 110 Fed. Rep. 685; Five Canal-Boats, 24 Fed. Rep. 500; The James D. Leary, 113 Fed. Rep. 1019; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 620; aff'g s. c. 110 Fed. Rep. 685; United States v. St. Louis &c. Transp. Co., 184 U. S. 247; s. c. 46 L. ed. 520; 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; aff'g s. c. 33 Ct. C. (U. S.) 251. A schooner which was lying with three others anchored at intervals across a channel three-quarters of a mile wide, during a snowstorm, creating a dangerous obstruction, owing to the thick weather and its insufficient ights, when all could have found safe anchorage grounds at the side of the channel, was held solely in fault for a collision with a passing teamer which exercised due care: The Maggie Ellen, 115 Fed. Rep. 442. "The John H. Starin, 122 Fed. Rep. 236; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 600: The Maggie Ellen, 115 Fed. Rep. 442. The A. P. Skidmore, 115 Fed. Rep. 791; The City of Lawrence, 15 Fed. Rep. 791. The negligence of a libelant in admiralty in placing himself in a position of some danger will not be held to constitute him in fault, where the defendant was chargeable with notice of such negligence, and might by the exercise of reasonable care have avoided the consequences, and where the injury resulted from an act of negligence on the part of defendant, of which libelant had no knowledge and which he had no reason to anticipate: The Steam Dredge No. 1, 122 Fed. Rep. 679. 13 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 35,431 (Act March 3, 1899, ch. 425, § 15; 30 U. S. Stat. at Large 1152). See The Caldy, 123 Fed. Rep. 802; The New Orleans, 123 Fed. Rep. 802. 14 Le Lion, 84 Fed. Rep. 1011 (channel four or five miles wide); The Northern Queen, 117 Fed. Rep. 906 (bay four miles wide); The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. Rep. 919 (1900 feet wide). 15 The Carl Konow, 64 Fed. Rep. 815; The Mary E. Cuff, 84 Fed. Rep. 719; The Severn, 113 Fed. Rep. 578; The Elcina, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 458. lision between two anchored vessels, one of which dragged its anchor while the other did not, the latter will be presumed to have been free from fault.16 17 § 6834. Anchored Vessel Should Manoeuvre to Avoid Impending Collision. A vessel anchored in the proper place is bound to use efforts to avoid vessels under way subject to special difficulties ;" and where anchored at a place embarrassing to navigation, the anchored vessel will be liable for a collision where her anchor watch does not exercise reasonable vigilance and fails to let out her chain, when a competent and vigilant man might have released it in time either to have avoided the collision or to have mitigated its consequences.18 § 6835. Care in Tripping Anchor.-A vessel should give some notice of her intention to trip her anchor; and where an anchor is tripped in a crowded harbor, and a collision results with another vessel because of want of notice, the colliding vessel will be liable for injuries occasioned thereby.19 § 6836. Fouling Anchors.-The master of a ship who knows of the anchor cables of another ship near by, and of their probable length, and crosses them, will take the risk of his own anchor, which is not yet aboard, fouling the cables of the other vessel.20 A vessel whose anchors have been fouled while a storm is at its height, is under no obligation to cut its own cables and take the risk of running ashore.21 In one case the blowing ashore of a yacht after her anchor had been torn loose by the anchor of another yacht which a tug was towing for salvage, with knowledge that the line was not taken in, was held to be the fault of the tug, for which it must respond in damages. 22 10 The Mary Fraser, 26 Fed. Rep. 872; The Severn, 113 Fed. Rep. 578. 17 Wells v. Armstrong, 29 Fed. Rep. 216. But a vessel will not be held guilty of negligence contributing to a collision because her machinery was disconnected and her sails taken down while at anchor for the purpose of making repairs, when she was properly anchored in a safe berth, where she remained, the collision being caused by the drifting against her in the night of another vessel, which was insecurely anchored: The Martha Davis, 94 Fed. Rep. 559. 18 The Richmond, 63 Fed. Rep. 1020; s. c. 10 C. C. A. 1. 19 The John S. Smith, 27 Fed. Rep. 398. A schooner lying at anchor, 20 The Gevalia, 39 Fed. Rep. 47. $6837. Injuries to Submarine Cables by Anchors.-A vessel anchored in a prohibited portion of a river or harbor is liable for all damages occasioned thereby to a submarine cable laid in the harbor under proper authorization; and this has been held to be the case although there was nothing to indicate the position of the cable. In another case it was held that where the anchor fouled with a kedge and lost its hold, and it did not appear that the dropping of a second anchor would have been of any avail, the vessel was not liable for the dragging of the anchor against a submarine cable, thereby breaking it, as it was the result of a peril of the sea.2 SECTION 24 ARTICLE II. MOORED VESSELS. 6840. Duty of vessels navigating in vicinity of moored vessels. 6841. Collision between departing vessel and moored vessel. 6842. Mooring-lines. SECTION 6845. Duty where moored alongside other vessels. 6846. Vessels lying at end of pier. 6847. Vessel moored so as to project beyond end of pier or dock. 6843. Vessel breaking away from 6848. Fault where vessel moored in an exposed position. her mooring. 6844. General duties of moored 6849. Hawsers stretched across slip. vessel. 6850. Presumption of fault. $6840. Duty of Vessels Navigating in Vicinity of Moored Vessels. -A vessel approaching her landing-place must use due care and follow the usual course of navigation; and she will be liable where, through failure to exercise such care, she collides with a vessel properly moored at her dock. Thus, where a tug, attempting to enter a slip through an opening only sixty feet wide, caused her tow to swing against the stern of a steamer lying along the wharf, and the tow struck a blade of one of the twin screws of the steamer, the tug was held to be in fault, although it was unusual in that port for steamships to be equipped with double screw propellers. Again, this actionable negligence may be displayed where a vessel attempts to enter a dock already fully occupied, after warning that there is no room for the intruding vessel; and it will be no defense that the entry was directed by the harbor master. Where a vessel that is struck Bell Teleph. Co. v. The Briganthe Rapid, 5 Can. Exch. 413; s. c. Rap. Jud. Que. 12 C. S. 37. 589 The Carl Frederick, 33 Fed. Rep. The J. E. Trudeau, 48 Fed. Rep. 847. 'The John C. Fisher, 50 Fed. Rep. 703; s. c. 3 U. S. App. 109; 1 C. C. A. 624. The Willie, 29 Fed. Rep. 153. 4 The Adelina v. The Gulf of Taranto, 65 Fed. Rep. 622. The Adelina v. The Gulf of Taranto, 65 Fed. Rep. 622. is already in the dock, but is there without right, and the vessel that strikes her crowds into the dock negligently, the damages may be apportioned, as both are in fault in such a case. § 6841. Collision between Departing Vessel and Moored Vessel.A vessel emerging from a crowded slip must use due care to avoid collision with vessels rightfully moored therein, and she must maintain complete control of herself. A lookout must be maintained;" and in the case of large ocean-going vessels the utmost care must be taken to prevent accidents from disturbances of the water." In case a steamer cannot get out of her slip by the use of her own propeller without doing damage to other vessels properly moored near her, she must employ a tug.10 Where the collision is caused by a departing vessel, she has the burden of proof to exonerate herself from the charge of negligence.11 $6842. Mooring-Lines.-A vessel has complied with the requirements as to her equipment of mooring-lines, where the lines carried are adequate to resist the effect of wind and rough weather; and she is not liable for a failure to have spare lines sufficient to withstand both the force of the wind and the impact of a steamer drifting against her.12 When engaged in receiving or discharging a cargo, the vessel should be attached to the wharf by a cable at each end.1 A vessel which casts off some of the lines by which another vessel is moored in order to go between such vessel and the pier to discharge her cargo, allowing such vessel to swing with the tide, assumes the responsibility of guarding her movements to prevent her injuring other vessels, and is solely liable for the injury to another vessel lying at the side of the pier with which the loosened vessel comes in collision.1+ $6843. Vessel Breaking Away from her Mooring.-A vessel is liable for collision with another vessel, consequent upon her breaking away from her moorings in a storm, if those in charge of her failed to see that she was securely fastened to withstand the storm.15 But 6 The Jeremiah Godfrey, 17 Fed. Rep. 844; Henderson v. The City of Rep. 738. Cleveland, 93 Fed. Rep. 844. 12 Slover v. Erie R. R. Car Float No. 4, 95 Fed. Rep. 495; modifying s. c. 89 Fed. Rep. 877. 18 The City of Naples, 81 Fed. Rep. 231; s. c. 29 Chic. Leg. N. 425; 53 U. S. App. 309; Meldrum v. Rathbun Co., [1899] 15 Quebec L. R. 459. 95. 14 The Guy G. Major, 124 Fed. Rep. 15 The Wier v. The Padre, 29 Fed. Rep. 335. |