ARTICLES OR REGULATIONS.

TABLE OF CASES BEARING ON EACH
ARTICLE OR REGULATION.

PAGE.

133

13. If two ships under steam are meet- The Lucia Jantina v. The Mexican. 130
ing end on or nearly end on so as to The Golden Fleece v. The Cognac
involve risk of collision, the helms The Amazon v. The Osprey
of both shall be put to port, so that The Esther v. The Concordia
each may pass on the port side of The Thames v. The Stork
the other.

14. If two ships under steam are cross- The Fruiter v. The Fingal
ing so as to involve risk of collision, The Milo v. The William Hunter
the ship which has the other on her

137

142

151

158

161

own starboard side shall keep out of

the way of the other.

165

167

181

15. If two ships, one of which is a The Promise v. H. M.S. Topaze.
sailing ship, and the other a steam The Jane v. The Great Eastern
ship, are proceeding in such direc- The Elizabeth v. The Lotus
tions as to involve risk of collision, The Governor v. The John MacIntyre 184
the steam ship shall keep out of the The Monsoon v. The Neptune 186
way of the sailing ship.
The Bruckenholme v. H. M.S. Supply 189
The Port v. The Castilian.
The Samphire v. The Fanny Buck. 193

16. Every steam ship, when approach- The Joseph Straker v. The Karla
ing another ship, so as to involve The Emperor v. The Lady of the
risk of collision, shall slacken her Lake

190

200

202

speed, or,
if necessary, stop and The Heart of Oak v. The Lady
reverse; and every steam ship shall, Jocelyn.

203

when in a fog, go at a moderate The Saucy Lass v. The Bolderaa
speed.

205

17. Every vessel overtaking any other The Jane and Ellen v. The Emma. 207
vessel, shall keep out of the way of The Wheatsheaf v. The Intrepide
the said last-mentioned vessel.

18. Where by the above rules one of The Iron Duke.

two ships is to keep out of the way, The Newburgh v. The Oscar .
the other shall keep her course, The Rienzi v. The Cleaver.
subject to the qualifications con- The Great Conquest and North East
tained in the following article.

ARTICLES OR REGULATIONS.

TABLE OF CASES BEARING ON EACH
ARTICLE OR REGULATION.

PAGE.

19. In obeying and construing these The Newcastle v. The Graaf
rules, due regard must be had to The Margaret v. The Emma
all dangers of navigation; and due The Planet v. The Aura.
regard must also be had to any
special circumstances which may
exist in any particular case render-
ing a departure from the above
rules necessary in order to avoid
immediate danger.

20. Nothing in these rules shall ex- The Eleanor v. The Alma
onerate any ship, or the owner, or The Plato v. The Perseverance
master, or crew thereof, from the The Jane v. The Windward
consequences of any neglect to carry
lights or signals, or of any neglect
to keep a proper look-out, or of the
neglect of any precaution which
may be required by the ordinary
practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case.

247

252
255

259

262

264

CHAPTER I.

THE accompanying Regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea are issued under and by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act of 1862, which, by its 25th section, enacts" that on and after the 1st day of June, 1863, the regulations contained in its schedule shall come into operation, and be of the same force as if they were included in the body of the Act; but that her Majesty may from time to time, on the joint recommendation of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and by Order in Council, annul or modify any of such regulations, or make new regulations in addition thereto, or substitution therefor; and all alteration in or addition to such regulations, made in manner aforesaid, shall be of the same force as the regulations in the said schedule.

Under the powers given by the above section, and by virtue of an Order in Council dated the 9th of January, 1863, the accompanying Regulations,-containing certain verbal amendments of the regulations in the said schedule, are substituted for such regulations and are now the ONLY " Articles or Regulations in force for the prevention of collision at sea."

In order further to enforce obedience to these articles or regulations, The Merchant Shipping Amendment Act of 1862 enacts by:

Breach of

Sect. 27. That: All owners and masters of ships regulations shall be bound to take notice of all such regulations,

a misde

meanor.

and shall, so long as the same continue in force, be bound to obey them, and to carry and exhibit no other lights and to use no other fog signals than such as are required by the said regulations; and in case of wilful default, the master or the owner of the ship, if it appear that he was in such fault, shall, for each occasion upon which such regulations are infringed, be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The accompanying regulations for preventing collision at sea now apply, by Order in Council, to all ships belonging to the following countries and places, whether within British jurisdiction or not.

As to how far her Majesty's ships are bound by these regulations, the Queen's Advocate, in the case of The Bruckenholme v. H.M.S. Supply, stated that it might be as well for him to announce, "that although those in charge of her Majesty's ships were not bound in law by such regulations, instructions had nevertheless, been issued to them, which were precisely in accordance with the same."-(See Case, as reported under Article 15, p. 189, post.)

of regula

tions to

imply wilful default

of person

Sect. 28. That: In case any damage to person or Breaches property arises from the non-observance by any ship of any of these regulations, such damage shall be deemed to have been occasioned by the wilful default in charge. of the person in charge of the deck of such ship at the time, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the circumstances of the case made a departure from the regulation necessary.

The effect of this 28th section is, "that if the master of the ship was in charge of the deck, and he was presumed under the section to be in fault, the owners of the ship would be responsible for the damage accruing, and so it would be with regard to the mate, or any other person, who could be named as servant of the owner." The Robert and Ann v. The Lloyds.-See case as reported under Article 9, page 59, post. As to the liability of the owner of the ship when a pilot is "the person in charge of the deck,” see the case of The Eliza v. The Orinoco, reported under Article 12, page 98, post, in which Dr. Lushington,-explaining the nature of the defence set up,-says: "The intention of the defendants is to admit that their ship was to blame for the collision, but that she had on board a licensed pilot, and that the whole blame attached to him; for then, according to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, they would be exonerated from all responsibility. It is a matter of great importance whether the pilot was solely or only partly to blame; as in the latter case the responsibility will remain attached to the owners of the ship."

Mr. Maclachlan, in his excellent treatise on the Law of Merchant Shipping, has the following note under this section:"The master, the mate, or a pilot, is usually the person in command of the deck; and the intention of the section appears to be to render such person liable over to the owner for the amount of compensation which he has been obliged to pay to the sufferer; the owner still remaining defendant to the action for negligence."