Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

pilot while in

the pilot alone (a). If the accident were occasioned by the joint misconduct of the pilot and crew, the And of the ship would be held liable (b). The pilot must be charge of the actually in charge of the deck at the time of the deck. collision. Thus, in a case where the pilot had gone below, leaving the charge of the deck to the second mate, and before he came up again a collision took place, the ship was held liable, and it was held to be immaterial in this respect whether or no the pilot were to blame for thus temporarily leaving his post (c). If the fault consists in improper steering, then, as this is peculiarly the pilot's province, the only chance of making the ship liable would be, it should seem, to show, either that the look-out was insufficient, or that the crew did not obey the pilot's orders (d). Steering orders, given by the pilot, and repeated by the master to the helmsman, are the pilot's acts (e). It is not enough, however, to prove that the pilot was in charge, and then ask the court to presume that any order as to the helm And this must have been given by him: it must be distinctly proved. proved that it was the pilot who gave the order Mere presence which led to the collision (ƒ). If the collision of pilot will has arisen from the want of a sufficient look

(a) Girolamo, 3 Hagg. 175.

(b) Diana, 1 W. Rob. 135.

(c) Mobile, Swab. 71. Affirmed in P. C., Swab. 128.

(d) Batavier, 2 W. Rob. 409.

(e) Admiral Boxer, Swab. 196.

(f) Schwalbe, 1 Lush. 240. In all cases where "pilot" is set up as the defence, the burthen of proof that the collision resulted from the faulty conduct of the pilot, and of him alone, rests with the defendant (Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 504).

not excuse.

The pilot responsible for bringing ship to, and getting her under weigh.

But pilot not responsible when fault lay

in coming out of dock at all.

out, the presence of a
of a pilot will not excuse the
ship (a).

Everything connected with the bringing of the ship to anchor, and getting her under weigh, falls within the duties of the pilot. Thus, in the Agricola's case, it was held that, to determine when and how to drop the anchor, is in the province of the pilot (b): in another case, that the pilot alone was to decide as to the propriety of bringing a ship to anchor, and, therefore, whether to run into an anchorage ground on a dark night or to remain outside (c): in another, that the catting of the anchor, so as to have it in readiness for letting go upon occasion, belonged to the pilot's duty (d): in another, that the mode of getting the ship under weigh was to be determined by the pilot (e). If, however, the collision have arisen because the sailors have been too slow in obeying the pilot's orders to let go the anchor (f), or because the anchor was too light to hold the ship as it ought to have done (g), the ship will be held liable.

In one case, where a ship was improperly moved from dock to dock on a dark night, when it was impracticable for the pilot to control the movements

(a) Eolides, 3 Hagg. 367; Diana, 1 W. Rob. 135; George, 2 W. Rob. 389.

(b) 2 W. Rob. 14.

(c) George, 2 W. Rob. 388.

(d) Gipsey King, 2 W. Rob. 547.

(e) Peerless, 1 Lush. 31.

(f) Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 506.

(g) Massachusetts, 1 W. Rob. 371.

of the tug, the presence of a pilot was held to be no excuse. The fault here consisted, not in anything done or omitted by the pilot, but in permitting the ship to be moved at all (a).

responsible

To see that the vessel is in proper trim for navi- Pilot not gation, is not the pilot's duty, but that of the for ships being in master or owner of the ship. It suffices, however, proper trim. if the ship is in ordinary safe trim; it is not necessary that her trim should be the best possible (b).

pilot, to

Generally speaking, it is the master's duty, and Master, not not that of the pilot, to determine whether or no decide as to to take the assistance of a steam tug (c). Hence, taking steam. the presence of a pilot was held to be no excuse, where the fault consisted in engaging insufficient steam power for docking a large ship (d). This is the rule under ordinary circumstances, when a tug is employed merely for accelerating speed. It may be different in cases where a ship is in distress, and it is a critical question whether to employ a tug or not; "those are cases," says Dr. Lushington, “in which the master ought to attend to the pilot's voice;" on account, evidently, of the pilot's superior local knowledge (e).

Where it was found as a fact that it was bad Master seamanship, when a vessel was lying at anchor in responsible.

for not sending down topgallant yards.

(a) Borussia, Swab. 95.

(b) Argo, Swab. 464.
(c) Julia, 1 Lush. 226.

(d) Carrier Dove, 8 Mitch. 368.
(e) Julia, 1 Lush. 226.

Pilot directing

ship from on board her tug, treated as in charge

of ship.

the Downs during a gale of wind, not to send down her topgallant yards, and that this omission had contributed to the collision, the question was raised, whether this was a fault of the pilot only, so as to excuse the owner, or of the pilot and master jointly, for which he would be liable; and the Committee of Privy Council pronounced in favour of the latter view. "The pilot," said Parke, B., in giving judgment, "has the sole direction of the vessel in those respects where his local knowledge is presumably required. The direction, the course, and the manœuvres of the vessel, when sailing, belong to him. It is also his sole duty to select the proper anchorage place and mode of anchoring and preparing to anchor. The step of sending down the topgallant yards being one which every master, according to the ordinary course of navigation, ought to have taken in every open roadstead, where many vessels are lying, and in blowing weather, that duty was not exclusively the pilot's, but that of the master also. If the pilot had given express orders to the master not to send down the topgallant masts, we do not say that the owners might not have been excused from responsibility for the consequences of that omission "(a).

Under this head it is only necessary to add that a pilot, who is on board a steam tug, directing the course of the vessel towed by orders given through à speaking trumpet, is equally to be considered the

(a) Hammond v. Rogers, 7 Notes of Cases, 41.

pilot in charge of the ship, as if he were on board the ship herself (a).

There may be occasions on which it becomes the duty of the captain wholly to take the control of the ship out of the pilot's hands. If, for example, the pilot is drunk (b), or goes to sleep, or plainly shows himself to be incompetent (c), the captain must take the charge himself. Where a pilot had abdicated his duty, by going to sleep, after hiring a waterman to do his work, and, owing to the waterman's fault, the ship came into collision with another vessel, the ship was held liable. The master ought, it was held, to have taken command, as if the pilot had been drunk (d).

In the case of the Girolamo, it was held by Sir John Nicoll, that if a vessel improperly goes on when the fog is so dense that she ought to have been brought to an anchor, and a collision takes place in consequence, it is no excuse to say that she was in charge of a pilot, for that the master ought to have interfered. "It seems to be nearly admitted," said the learned Judge, "that, if the vessel had set off in this fog, blame would have been imputable to the master (e). If so, was he not blameable for going on in the fog? Had he not a right

[blocks in formation]

(a) Gipsey King, 2 W. Rob. 542.
(b) Argo, Swab. 464.

(c) Lochlibo, 3 W. Rob. 321.
(d) Lady Havelock, 10 Mitch. 147.

(e) See the Borussia, ante, p. 109.

« AnteriorContinuar »