ceded that the injured vessel had failed to display lights required by the navigation rules, she then has the burden of proving that the violation of the rule did not contribute to the collision.40 6781. Vessels not under way-Ves- 6786. Burden of proof that failure to sels leaving docks. 6782. Assenting signals. 6783. Duty to navigate in accordance with signals assented to. sound signal did not con⚫ tribute to collision. § 6778. Sound Signals are Given by Short Blasts on the Whistle. -Sound signals to indicate the course of the vessel are given by short whistle-blasts of about one second's duration, and, under the International Rules, are to be given when the vessels are in sight of each other. One short blast means, "I am directing my course to starboard." Two short blasts mean, "I am directing my course to port." Three short blasts mean, "My engines are going at full speed astern." When either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other from any cause, the vessel in doubt must immediately signify the same by giving not less than four short and rapid blasts.2 The vessel should not proceed with the manoeuvre indicated by her signal until she is assured that her signal is understood, though cases are not wanting which hold both vessels in fault where confused signals have induced improper manœuvres. Thus, where a ferry-boat which had stopped and reversed when her second signal of one whistle to a tug on her starboard side 4 40 The Komuk, 120 Fed. Rep. 841; The Clarence, 120 Fed. Rep. 841. 1 Article 28 of the International Navigation Rules. Article 28 of the general navigation rules (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2884), which provides that, "when vessels are in sight of each other, a steam-vessel under way, whose engines are going at full speed astern, shall indicate that fact by three short blasts on the whistle," is applicable, and obligatory, although the other is a sailingvessel: The Triton, 118 Fed. Rep. 329; s. c. 55 C. C. A. 345; The John A. Curtis, 118 Fed. Rep. 329; s. c. 55 2 Article 18, rule 3, of the Inland River and Harbor Rules. The City of Albany, 34 Fed. Rep. 812; The DeVeaux Powell, 120 Fed. Rep. 522; Hanover v. The City of Chester, 24 Fed. Rep. 91; The Lackawanna, 120 Fed. Rep. 522. * The John L. Brady, 115 Fed. Rep. 204; The British Queen, 89 Fed. Rep. 1003; In re Brooklyn Ferry Co., 115 Fed. Rep. 564; The Richard Croker, 115 Fed. Rep. 564; The Wildcroft, 115 Fed. Rep. 204. on a crossing course was unanswered, afterwards received an assenting and then a crossing signal from the tug, and assented to the latter but continued to go backward under reversed engines while the tug was attempting to pass astern of her in accordance with the agreement, the ferry-boat was held to be in fault for the resulting collision although her navigation up to that time had been careful and the initial fault was that of the tug in confusing the signals." $6779. Vessels Meeting Head On or Nearly Head On.-Steamvessels approaching each other head on, or nearly so, are required to pass on the port side of each other; and either vessel must give as a signal of her intention one short blast, which the other vessel must answer promptly by a similar blast of her whistle; but if the courses of the vessels are so far on the starboard of each other as not to be considered head and head, either vessel shall immediately give two short blasts which the other shall answer promptly by similar blasts, and they shall pass on the starboard side of each other." §6780. Overtaking Vessels.-Where a vessel astern desires to pass on the starboard side of the vessel ahead, she must signify her desire by one short blast, and if the vessel ahead answers with one blast, she shall put her helm to port. If she desires to pass on the port side of the ressel ahead, she must give two short blasts as the signal of this desire, and on answer by the vessel ahead, shall put her helm to starboard. In case the vessel ahead does not think it safe for the vessel astern to attempt to pass at that point, it is her duty to signify the same by giving not less than four short and rapid blasts. These signals must be given in time to allow the overtaken vessel to execute the proper manœuvre. $6781. Vessels Not Under Way-Vessels Leaving Docks.-When a steam-vessel is moving from her dock and other boats are liable to pass from any direction toward her, she must give one long blast; but immediately after clearing her berth so as to be fully in sight, she will In re Brooklyn Ferry Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 741; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 23; fgs. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 564; The Alaska, 121 Fed. Rep. 741; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 23; aff'g s. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 564. Article 18, rule 1, of the Rules 'Thus, a steamer overtaking a steam-yacht while rounding Hallett's Point in Hell Gate was wholly at fault for a collision in attempting to pass such yacht at the turn near the shore, and in delaying her signal to indicate her purpose until so close aboard the yacht that there remained no time for safe manœuvring: The Sam Sloan, 65 Fed. Rep. 125. be governed by the steering and sailing rules applicable to the particular water. Vessels at anchor, moored, or aground are not required to give signals.10 § 6782. Assenting Signals.-A vessel proceeding in accordance with the rules is not required to obtain the consent of a passing vessel. before executing her manœuvre.11 Where a manœuvre not otherwise sanctioned by the rules of navigation is contemplated, it is the duty of such a vessel to signal her desire and obtain the assent of the other vessel before proceeding with its execution.12 The assent must be procured; it can not be assumed from a failure to answer the signal.' In case of a failure to elicit an answer, it is the duty of the vessel giving the signal to exercise special caution, and she should either repeat her signal, slacken speed, or reverse, if necessary, to avert collision.14 Thus, it has been held that the failure of a vessel to take any Article 18, rule 5, of the Inland River and Harbor Rules. A tug tak ing a vessel out of her slip and undertaking to cross the course of another vessel approaching, without giving the signal of two whistles which the Inspectors' Rules require, is in fault, and a long blast just before leaving the slip is in no sense equivalent: The Rio Grande, 38 Fed. Rep. 849. 10 The Maurice B. Grover, 96 Fed. Rep. 678; In re Saville, 86 Fed. Rep. 800; The Express, 48 Fed. Rep. 323. 11 The E. H. Coffin, 9 Ben. (U. S.) 20; s. c. aff'd, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 421; The New York, 86 Fed. Rep. 816. 12 The John King, 49 Fed. Rep. 469; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 64; 1 C. C. A. 319; The Virginia, 49 Fed. Rep. 84; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. Rep. 98; The City of Chester, 78 Fed. Rep. 186; The Pegasus, 15 Fed. Rep. 921; The George L. Schultz, 84 Fed. Rep. 508; William E. Furgason, 108 Fed. Rep. 973; The Panama, 46 Fed. Rep. 496; The Johnson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 146; The New York, 175 U. S. 203. A steamer approaching a tug end to end takes the risk of her ability to pass safely to starboard, by signalling and obtaining the tug's assent to such departure from the rules, and is solely responsible for a collision which would not have happened had the tug not taken a sudden shear to starboard through the force of the tide, which she was unable to counteract, though doing 13 everything in her power: The Titan, 49 Fed. Rep. 479; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 123; 1 C. C. A. 324; aff'g s. c. 44 Fed. Rep. 510. 13 The Provinia, 26 Fed. Rep. 106; The Hudson, 14 Fed. Rep. 489; The Baltimore, 56 Fed. Rep. 127; The Elizabeth, 116 Fed. Rep. 225; The New York & The Conemaugh, 56 U. S. App. 146. A steamer which by her signals invites a departure from the ordinary rules of navigation by crossing the bow of another steamer meeting on crossing courses, takes the risk of her own whistles being heard and of hearing the responses, and cannot invoke any rule of the supervising inspectors of a harbor to justify her in proceeding, in the absence of proof that her signals were heard, understood and accepted by the other vessel: The John King, 49 Fed. Rep. 469; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 64; 1 C. C. A. 319. 14 The Mary Shaw, 6 Fed. Rep. 918; The Columbia, 25 Fed. Rep. 844; The Waverly, 41 Fed. Rep. 607; Erwin v. Neversink S. S. Co., 23 Hun (N. Y.) 573; The New York, 175 U. S. 201. The pilot of a steamer, hearing no answer to his signal of one whistle, but wrongly informed by the mate that there was an answer of one whistle, upon perceiving the two lights of an approaching steamer, and then the green light alone, and knowing that she is proceeding contrary to her supposed answer, is bound to reduce his speed to bare steerage way, with a signal of three precaution to avoid collision with another vessel which fails to respond to signals when meeting in a narrow channel, except to repeat the disregarded signal, when it is too late to avoid collision, is at fault, although the other vessel may be more grossly in fault.15 It must be understood that assent in these cases is a matter of favor, and cannot be coerced. The privileged vessel can not be compelled to give up her right under the navigation rules by the fact that another vessel has signified her desire to navigate in violation of these rules. The right of the privileged vessel is never lost until she has assented by signal to a change of course.16 Where a vessel has assented to a requested manoeuvre she is thereafter estopped to urge the attempted manœuvre as a fault, though it results in a collision.17 §6783. Duty to Navigate in Accordance with Signals Assented to. -It is the duty of a vessel receiving an assent to her signal to navigate in accordance with such signal;18 and a like duty rests on the privileged vessel to the end that the manoeuvre may not be embarrassed.19 This duty of compliance must be understood with the qualification that the manœuvre intended by the signalling vessel can be executed without injury; and where, by reason of the narrowness of the passage, the manœuvre would be attended with danger to the assenting vessel, blasts until another answer is heard, or rely upon the steamer to keep out of the way under the starboardhand rule while his own keeps her course: The Saginaw, 84 Fed. Rep. 705. The Victory, 68 Fed. Rep. 395; modifying s. c. 63 Fed. Rep. 631. "The Cephalonia, 29 Fed. Rep. 332; The Columbia, 92 Fed. Rep. 936; The Garden City, 19 Fed. Rep. 533; The John King, 49 Fed. Rep. 43; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 64; 1 C. C. A. 319; The Milwaukee, Brown Adm. (U. S.) 313; The Victory, 63 Fed. Rep. 631. The Arthur M. Palmer, 115 Fed. Rep. 417. "The Dauntless, 116 Fed. Rep. 43; The Galilieo, 24 Fed. Rep. 386; The Gratitude v. The Eutaw, 14 Fed. Rep. 479; The Guyandotte and The Delaware, 92 Fed. Rep. 931; s. c. 35 CC. A. 91; La Champagne, 47 Fed. Rep. 122; The Lisbenense, 53 Fed. Rep. 293; s. c. 3 C. C. A. 539; The Nutmeg State, 67 Fed. Rep. 556; aff g 8. c. 62 Fed. Rep. 847; The PeerJess, 48 Fed. Rep. 844; The Rich mond, 28 Fed. Rep. 332; The St. John's, 34 Fed. Rep. 763; The Stand ard, 23 Fed. Rep. 207. A tug with a barge in tow was slowly passing out from her pier into the Hudson River, having given the usual long whistle to notify vessels of her approach, when she received two short whistles from a steamboat, and stopped to allow her to pass to the westward. The steamboat failed to starboard her helm, in accordance with her own signal, until it was too late to avoid collision with the barge, although it was midday, and she had plenty of water way to pursue a safe course. It was held that the steamboat was solely at fault, tne failure to observe her plain duty being gross negligence: The Newark, 89 Fed. Rep. 592; s. c. 32 C. C. A. 274. 19 The City of Macon, 85 Fed. Rep. 236; The Central, 122 Fed. Rep. 747; Milliken v. The C. H. Northam, 37 Fed. Rep. 238; The Sammie, 37 Fed. Rep. 907; The Lakme, 118 Fed. Rep. 972; s. c. 55 C. C. A. 466; The Tyee, 118 Fed. Rep. 972; s. c. 55 C. C. A. 466; The Queen Elizabeth, 118 Fed. Rep. 972; s. c. 55 C. C. A. 466; The William Orr, 54 Fed. Rep. 904. it is the duty of the other vessel to wait until a clearly sufficient space for the manœuvre has been reached.2 20 When the assenting vessel has done her part to execute the manœuvre, the evidence must be strong to justify a court in holding her in fault for a collision because she did not interrupt the manœuvre, in the course of its execution, on perceiving that it was not being properly executed by the vessel that initiated it, as it was her duty to hold to the course agreed upon until all doubt that the other vessel would not or could not observe her own signal had been dispelled.21 The consent to a change of course having been given, and the manœuvre having been entered upon, an alteration should not be signalled when the time is too short to accomplish the manœuvre with safety.2 § 6784. Signals are Intended for Companions of Assenting Vessel. -A tug in company with another is justified in treating the signal of a third tug meeting them, given to her companion, as also addressed to herself, where there is not room for the third tug to pass between her and her companion. 23 § 6785. Presumption that Signal was Given within the Proper Distance. Where nothing appears to the contrary, a signal made and assented to without any misunderstanding will be presumed to have been given within the proper distance.24 § 6786. Burden of Proof that Failure to Sound Signal Did Not Contribute to Collision.-The failure to give the signals places the burden on the delinquent steamer of showing that such failure did not contribute to the collision; and in the absence of such showing she will 20 Milliken v. The C. H. Northam, 37 Fed. Rep. 238. Where two meet ing vessels by signals agreed on the course on which they should pass, and one suddenly sheered from her course, and within from forty to sixty seconds struck and sunk the other, the latter cannot be held in fault for not manœuvring in such unexpected emergency with the utmost promptness, skill, and accuracy of judgment: The Ohio, 91 Fed. Rep. 547. 21 The George L. Garlick, 91 Fed. Rep. 920. 22 The City of Macon, 85 Fed. Rep. 236. A tug with a bark in tow is not at fault for a collision, where, after it had entered a channel, it discovered a steamer coming down the channel a half-mile distant, nearly ahead, but slightly on the tug's port bow, upon which the tug signalled that she proposed to pass to starboard, and the steamer replied to port helm, which the tug at once did, but the steamer, when so near as to render a collision almost inevitable, altered her signals, and the tug, to escape being run down, turned quickly to the left, and barely escaped, while the bark was unable to get out of the way and was struck: Kiernan v. Stafford, 43 Fed. Rep. 542. 23 The James Bowen, 52 Fed. Rep. 510. 69. 24 The Charles Morgan, 115 U. S. |