Instances of inevitable accident. vessel close-hauled on the port tack, a little on her port bow. The Aimo kept her course. The Amelia, having lost her head sails in a previous collision, was unable to bear up, and a collision occurred. It was held to be an inevitable accident (). In the following cases the courts have held that the collisions were the result of inevitable accident. It must, however, be pointed out again that the question before the Court in all these cases was, not whether the collision was inevitable, but whether it could have been avoided by ordinary care. A steamer rounding-to in the Thames on a dark night against a strong flood tide under a starboard helm, with her head to the southward, was seen by a brig coming down. Notwithstanding that all that could be done was done by both vessels, a collision occurred. It was held to be a case of inevitable accident. The Court said that if the steamer had put her helm to starboard with a view to bring up after seeing the brig she would have been to blame (s). A ship, which had made fast by order of the port authority to a private buoy, was held not to be in fault for a collision caused by the parting of the band round the buoy (t). And in America the drawing of a "spile," to which the vessel had properly been made fast (u), was held inevitable accident. In the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of the crew, the jamming of the cable round the windlass, when the anchor was let go, was held to be an inevitable accident (x). (r) The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 (s) The Shannon, 1 W. Rob. 463. 5 P. C. 338. (u) The Mary L. Cushing, 60 Fed. Rep. 110. (x) The William Lindsay, supra; The Peerless, Lush. 30. But see The Agamemnon, 1 Quebec, L. R. 333, as to windlass carrying away. The parting of a cable in a gale of wind (y), and of moorings in calm weather (≈), has been held to be an inevitable accident. But if there is negligence in not letting go an anchor, or in not having an anchor ready to let go when the vessel is adrift, she cannot sustain the defence of inevitable accident (a). Where a collision occurred in consequence of the breaking of part of the steering gear, there being a latent defect in the metal, it was held to be an inevitable accident (b). But if the gear is manifestly insufficient or weak, or has not been properly cared for (e), the defence of inevitable. accident cannot be sustained (d). Where a ship, A., at anchor in the Thames, was run into by another, B., and was, without fault on her own part, driven by B. against a third ship, C., it was held that, so far as A. was concerned, the collision between her and C. was an inevitable accident (e). A ship which had been ashore on a sand, was driving over it, and came into collision with another brought up in deep water to leeward of the sand. To have let go her anchor before she was clear of the sand would have been dangerous to herself, and without letting go while on the sand she could not keep clear of the ship at anchor. A collision which followed was held to be inevitable (ƒ). A dumb barge in the Thames, driving with the tide, (y) The London, 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 398; Br. & L. 82. (2) The Ambassador, Ad. Ct., Feb. 12th, 1875, cited in The Pladda, 2 P. D. 34, 37. (a) The Pladda, 2 P. D. 34; The Kepler, ibid. 40; The City of Peking, 14 App. Cas. 40 (chain cable not bent). As to such a plea by a ship which has given another a foul berth, see The Secret, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 318. (b) The Virgo, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 285. (e) The Altenower, 39 Fed. Rep. 118 (nut allowed to work off). (d) The M. M. Caleb, 10 Blatchf. 467; The Warkworth, 9 P. D. 20, 145; infra, p. 192; The Indus, 12 P. D. 46; The Merchant Prince, (1892) P. 179 (steam steering gear failing to act); The Olympia, 61 Fed. Rep. 120 (parting of the wire tiller rope); The Riversdale, 53 Fed. Rep. 286, aliter. (e) The Hibernia, 4 Jur. N. S. 1244. (f) The Thornley, 7 Jur. 659. The Buckhurst, 6 P. D. 152, is a very similar case. American cases. came into collision with a steamer going up against the ebb at the rate of two knots. There was evidence that the barge could not have been seen sooner than she was seen. In the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of the steamer, the collision was held to be an inevitable accident (g). Where two ships, by no fault of their own, suddenly find themselves in a position in which a collision is imminent, and one of them omits to execute a manoeuvre which possibly might have averted the collision, she will not necessarily be held in fault for not having taken the measure suggested. Where two large sailing-ships, one in the act of going about, and the other going free, sighted each other in a dense fog at a distance of less than 300 yards, and a collision occurred in less than a minute, it was held that the ship in stays was not in fault for not having hauled aft her head sheets to assist her helm, although if she had done so the collision might have been averted. The collision was held to be a case of inevitable accident (h). In The Resolution (i), Sir J. Marriott held that a collision caused by "showring weather, the darkness of the night, and the small distance of the two ships and shortness of time in discovering each other, being close," was an inevitable accident. In the following American cases the defence of inevitable accident has been sustained. A vessel in the open sea overtook another at night, the darkness being so great that she could not see the vessel ahead in time to avoid her (k). A sailing-ship in a narrow channel being suddenly compelled to let go her anchor to (g) The Swallow, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 371. (h) The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212. (i) Marsd. Ad. Ca. 332; infra, p. 167. The Atalanta, 41 Fed. Rep. 639, was a similar decision, in the save herself from going ashore, in consequence of the wind failing, a steamship close astern unavoidably ran into her (1). A large steamer was entering a harbour by a course that was not the usual one, but which was a course she had a right to go. As she was rounding the stern of a hulk, she suddenly saw and ran into a schooner which the hulk had prevented her seeing before. The schooner, which had just cast off from her tug, was setting her sails and drifting with the tide in a helpless condition. The collision was held by the Supreme Court to have been inevitable (m). A steamship going as slowly as possible in a fog fouled a ship at anchor. It was held to be an inevitable acci dent (n). A vessel properly moored was set adrift by six other craft driving on her, and did some damage. It was held that she was not liable (o). So a craft set adrift by an extraordinary mass of ice (p), or an extraordinary flood (1), was held not to be liable for damage done by her in a collision. A vessel in tow of a tug salvor in a thick fog, by reason of her disabled state, took a sudden sheer, and fouled the masts of a sunken ship, to which, it was alleged, she was taken needlessly near. It was held that, as between the owners of the sunken wreck and the tug, the damage to the former was an inevitable accident (r). But where a schooner in a leaky condition, in order to avoid sinking in deep water, cast off from a wharf alongside which she was lying, and before she was got under Negligence in a salvor. Or a tug. command drove against another vessel, it was held that the collision was not an inevitable accident (s). In the case of a ship improperly attempting to pass another ashore in a narrow channel, it was held that in attempting to pass the ship ashore, she did so at her own peril (t). In this country it has been held that a ship driven from her moorings by another which came foul of her in a gale of wind, could not escape liability to a third ship against which she drove, because she omitted to let go a second anchor (u). If a vessel engaged in rendering salvage service to another negligently runs into the vessel she is assisting, she is liable for the damage; but she does not thereby forfeit her right to a sum which has been previously agreed upon as remuneration for the salvage service, unless the negligence is very gross. In such cases the Court regards error or negligence in the salvor less severely than in ordinary cases of collision (r). If the salvor, without negligence on her own part, is injured in a collision with the ship she is assisting, caused by negligence of the latter, she can recover for her loss (y). It is an implied term of the ordinary towage contract, that each vessel shall be conducted with proper care and skill. The general rule is, that the tug is bound to obey the orders of the tow; but both as between themselves and as regards other ships the tug and her tow are each under the ordinary obligation to show proper skill and care in avoiding collision. Their respective duties and liabilities will be considered in a subsequent chapter (≈). (8) Sherman v. Mott, 5 Bened. (t) The Merrimac, 14 Wall. 199. (x) The C. S. Butler and The Baltic, L. R. 4 A. & E. 178. See also The Thetis, L. R. 2 A. & E. 365; The Dwina, infra, p. 327; Stevens v. The S. W. Downs and The Storm, Newb. Ad. 458. (y) The Mud Hopper, 40 L. T. N. S. 462; 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 103. (c) Infra, p. 198. |