York harbour. Those on board the vessels in tow took no American part in the navigation as regards directing the courses of cases. their tugs, and both were taken by their tugs into water where under the local rules they had no right to be, and where they fouled each other. It was held that, though both tugs were in fault, neither of the ships in tow was in fault, and that neither of them was liable in damages to the other (s). There can be little doubt that, in this country, each would have been liable for half the loss of the other. Where a tug, for her own purposes, and without the consent of the other ship, took hold of a vessel alongside a wharf to move her, it was held that the tug was liable for any damage the vessel might do, whether those on board her might have avoided it or not (t). Where one member of the tow got adrift and did damage whilst the tug was "singling out " her tow, it was held that the tug was liable (u). In another case the tug was held liable, because her master had negligently moored to a wharf three of his barges, one of which got adrift and fouled a ship at anchor (x). In another (y) case the tug was held liable, because she had more craft in tow than she could manage. So where a steamship, in order to extricate herself from danger caused by a heavy raft in tow of two tugs, put her engines full speed ahead, broke the raft up, and forced her way through it, it was held that she was not liable for the damage to the raft which the tugs were unable to control (≈). In a heavy gale blowing across their courses, the tows of two tugs sagged to leeward and damaged each other. Both tugs were held in fault for not keeping the tows (s) The Doris Eckhoff, 50 Fed. Rep. 134. (t) The Ben Hooley, 6 Fed. Rep. 318. (u) The Blanche L., 68 Fed. Rep. 939; The R. C. Veit, 56 Fed. Rep. 122, where the tow got adrift by her own fault. (x) The P. J. Nevins, The Wideawake, 67 Fed. Rep. 158. (y) The Richmond, The E. Heipershausen, 63 Fed. Rep. 1020. (2) The Athabasca, 45 Fed. Rep. 651. American cases. clear of each other (a). A tug with a long tow rounding a bend in a river, where there was a cross set of tide, was held in fault, as against a third ship, for allowing her tow to sag across the river so as to occupy half the starboard side of the fairway (1). Where the pilot of a barque in tow, who was specially employed to take her through a narrow and dangerous passage, being in charge of both tug and tow, proposed to go on one side of a rock, but the tug, seeing other craft in the way, without orders from the pilot, and in spite of his remonstrances, altered her course in order to go on the other side of the rocks, upon which the barque took the ground, it was held that the tug was liable for the damage (c). If the tow-line parts, by reason of the tug suddenly going ahead and putting an unnecessary strain upon it, and damage is done to a third ship, the tug is liable (d); but if it carries away because it is improperly made fast on board the tow, the tow is liable (e). A tug, being unable to come to terms with her tow, a schooner, as to the charge for towing, cast off the towline, so that the schooner went against a dock and was damaged. The tug was held liable (ƒ). So where a tug salvor started to tow off a lee shore without getting the ship's anchor, and set another ship adrift by fouling her anchor with the anchor of the first ship, the tug was held liable for the consequent loss of the second ship (g). A tug took her tow so close to a ship at anchor that, on suddenly changing her course, the tow-line parted, and the tow fouled the ship at anchor. The tug was held liable (1⁄2). A tug was held in fault for a collision between her tow American and a third ship, caused by a squall which might have been cases. foreseen, and guarded against by anchoring (i). A long and heavy tow of barges in a winding river, with a strong tide, requires two or more tugs to control it; one of these is, in America, styled the principal or governing tug and the other the "helper." A principal tug, lying at anchor, with her tow astern, has been held liable for not causing her "helper" to sound a fog-horn, in accordance with local rules, as she lay alongside the tow (k). A tug and the third ship were both in fault for a collision between the tow and third ship. The tow sued the tug, and a decree passed for the whole of the loss against the tug (the third ship not being sued (1) ). both liable. Two tugs were moving an ocean steamship in New Tug and tow York harbour. The officers and crew were on board the liner, but were acting under the orders of the master of one of the tugs, who was in charge of the operation. It was held that the tow and both the tugs were liable for a collision between the tow and a third ship. The owner of the two tugs had undertaken, as "independent contractor," to move the steamship, and the tug-master was in charge of the whole manoeuvre. Nevertheless, the tug-owner and the owners of the steamship were held liable as joint tortfeasors. Both ships being damaged, the tow and the two tugs were held liable in equal shares for the damage to the third ship, and the damage to the tow was divided between herself and the two tugs (m). So where the pilot of a barque in tow was in charge of the navigation of tow and tug, and a collision occurred between the barque and a third ship, both tug and tow were held liable (n). (i) The Young America, 25 Fed. Rep. 207. (k) The Raleigh and The Niagara, 44 Fed. Rep. 781. Cf. The James Berwind, 44 Fed. Rep. 693, where the tug and tow were under way. Tow alone liable. Where a tug was partly in fault for damage to the tow by collision with a pier, the rule of division of loss was applied as between tug and tow, the damage having been caused by the fault of both (o). And so where a schooner lashed alongside her tug was damaged by collision with a third ship, both she and her tug were held in fault for navigating in water forbidden by local rules (p). A barge made fast to a tow, unknown to the tug; she broke adrift and did damage. It was held that the tug was not liable (q). So also where a lighter was fast to a ship in tow, which gave the order to the tug to go ahead before the lighter had cast off; the lighter being damaged, it was held that the tug was not liable (»). Where a tug was so small that she was controlled by the helm of her tow, which by her weight took charge of her when the course was altered, it was held that the tow was alone liable (s). A tug brought a ship alongside a schooner at a wharf. The ship in tow negligently put out her fender so that it broke the schooner's rail. The ship was held alone in fault (t). A schooner in tow, with her mainsail set, was struck by a gust of wind, sheered out of the wake of the tug, and struck a bridge. She was held alone in fault (u). A large steamship was being hauled out of her dock in New York harbour, stern foremost, by a tug. She put her engines astern, and, gathering too much way, struck and damaged the dock. It was held that the tug was not liable (x). The Supreme Court (y) has held that the tow is identified with her tug to the extent "that she cannot escape the consequences, if the collision was caused wholly or in part by the fault of that (her own) tug." It has been held that a tug with a fleet of barges or canal boats in tow, though she is not, like a common carrier, liable as insurer of the cargo on board her tow (≈), is generally liable for damage to the craft in tow or the cargo on board them, and also for damage to third ships by the tow (a). of towage; As stated above (b), it is an implied term in the ordinary The contract contract of towage that the tug shall implicitly obey the its terms and orders of the ship in tow (c). If no orders are given by performance. the latter, it is the duty of the tug to take such a course as will carry herself and her tow clear of collision and other dangers (d); but it seems to have been held in the Privy Council (e) that it was not a breach of duty for the tug to pursue a course which, though imprudent, the pilot of the tow acquiesced in. in crowded Notwithstanding the rule that, under ordinary circum- Duty of tug stances, the tug must obey the orders of the ship in tow (f), it is obvious that in crowded waters, with ships 241; The Altair, (1897) P. 105; (e) Smith v. St. Lawrence Tow (f) The Christina, 3 W. Rob. 27, 33; in The Duke of Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 270, the decision was to the same effect, and upon similar grounds. waters. |