65 tow, and for a failure to use this degree of care, whereby a collision results, the tug will be liable for the damages inflicted. In the matter of starting, a tug must obey the tow, and she will not be liable for an injury caused by starting prematurely at the command of the tow. 66 The tug will be liable for injuries where the start is made so abruptly as to pull out the post of the tow to which the hawser is attached.67 § 6872. Care of Tow as Dependent on Soundness of her Condition. -The tug may assume, in the absence of notice to the contrary, that the tow is able to receive without damage all the usual contacts incident to navigation. But this rule does not justify any rude, rough or indifferent handling of the boats, or absolve the tug from the duty of navigating with reasonable care, so as to avoid injurious contacts. In such cases the question of liability for damage must be determined from all the circumstances in evidence, and is dependent on whether the blow was of unnecessary violence, and therefore indicative of lack of reasonable care under the circumstances of the case.68 § 6873. Care with Reference to Overhead Bridges.-The tug must take into consideration the height of bridges under which she navigates her tow, and it has been held that the master of a tug who attempted to conduct a tow under the Brooklyn Bridge, knowing that at mean high tide there was a margin of safety not exceeding one foot between the mast of the tow and the bridge, was guilty of negligence rendering the tug liable in damages for the breaking of the mast on contact with the bridge."9 § 6874. Collisions between Different Vessels in the Tow.-A tug free from fault will not be liable for injuries inflicted by one vessel of the flotilla on another, as where, during a storm, the crew of one of the vessels in tow cuts loose the following vessel.70 § 6875. Injuries to Tow by Collision with submerged Objects.Although a tug is not a common carrier or liable as an insurer, she is bound to use reasonable care and nautical skill to know the condition of the bottom and the depth of the channel she is traversing, including a knowledge of ordinary obstructions." A master taking 65 Wagner v. The W. M. Wood, 45 Fed. Rep. 774. 66 The Jack Jewett, 23 Fed. Rep. 927. 67 The E. Luckenbach, 23 Fed. Rep. 725; aff'g s. c. 15 Fed. Rep. 924. es The Victoria, 88 Fed. Rep. 524. 69 McMillan v. Moran, 113 Fed. Rep. 755; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 445. 70 In re Moran, 120 Fed. Rep. 556; Atlantic &c. Co. v. Luckenbach, 120 Fed. Rep. 556. 71 The Crescent, 120 Fed. Rep. 569; The Ellen McGovern, 27 Fed. Rep. his tow into waters with which he is unfamiliar must either take a pilot, or inquire from persons competent to give information as to channel conditions; and he will be liable for an injury to his tow from striking a sunken rock, the existence of which is known to navigators familiar with the locality.72 The tug will not be liable, however, for injury to the tow caused by striking a sunken rock which was not shown on the charts or known to navigators;73 unless the collision was caused by a deviation from the ordinary course of vessels or in violation of sailing directions.74 $6876. Liability for Injury to Tow Attached Without Knowledge of Tug.-In order that a tug may be held liable for injury to or by her tow, under the maritime law, there must be a contract of towage, either express or implied; and this being the case, the tug will not be liable for injuries to a tow attached without knowledge of the tug, nor for injuries inflicted on other vessels by such a tow.75 $6877. Casting Off Tow.-A tug, before casting off a tow for any reason after the service has been undertaken, must give the tow reasonable notice of the intention to cast her adrift;76 and it is her duty to see that the tow is properly anchored and secured after being cast off;" and if the place selected for anchorage is exposed, the tug 868: The H. S. Nichols, 53 Fed. The Mabel S., 113 Fed. Rep. 971. "The Belle, 93 Fed. Rep. 833; & c. 35 C. C. A. 623; aff'g s. c. 89 Fed. Rep. 879; The Mary N. Hogan, 30 Fed. Rep. 927; The Pierrepont, 42 Fed. Rep. 687. Louis &c. Transp. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 478. "Anglo-Australian Steam Nav. Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 798. 70 The A. M. Ball, 43 Fed. Rep. 170. "The Alabama, 114 Fed. Rep. 214; The Aurora v. The Republic, 25 Fed. Rep. 778; The Carbonero, 122 Fed. Rep. 753; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 553; The Curtin, 114 Fed. Rep. 214; The P. C. Schultz, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 536; Reading v. Munson, 122 Fed. Rep. 753; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 553. A tug The Nathan Hale, 91 Fed. Rep. which takes from a dock SCOWS 682; The Mascot, 48 Fed. Rep. 917. loaded with lumber to be towed to a A contract to tow a barge and her certain place, and, upon discovering cargo from St. Louis to New Or- that it is unsafe to tow them to leans contained a clause, "dangers their destination, ties them up to a of navigation and other known or river bank and sends notice to the unknown obstacles excepted." The consignor or owner where they are. tow ran the barge against a tree, and leaves them without lights or which had recently fallen into the watchman, is liable for their loss, channel, the presence of which was from breaking adrift, notwithstandnot discoverable by the pilot. It was ing a custom of tug-men in the harheld that the accident arose from bor to act in such manner: The an excepted peril and was inevita- American Eagle, 54 Fed. Rep. 1010. ble, and did not render the tow- But where a tug towed a vessel into boat liable: Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. a slip, where it was held by a line .79 must see that a watch is maintained's and that lights are displayed ;7" and if the place first selected is unsafe, the tow should be removed to a place of safety.80 Where, because of a fog or other reason, the danger to the anchored tow is increased, it is the duty of the tug to return and look after the safety of the tow.81 Reasonable care does not require that a tow shall be anchored so as to withstand storms of extraordinary violence.82 Where a tow breaks away from its mooring, it is the duty of the tug to use reasonable efforts to recover the vessel.8% § 6878. Care in Towing Rafts.-The right to tow rafts on navigable rivers has long been recognized as a proper use of such waters; but such right must be exercised with due regard for the rights of others and to the general usage and customs of navigation and commerce on such waters. Vessels traversing navigable streams have the right to assume that a raft is manageable by its tug, especially fastened to another vessel, and the line parted after the tug had cast off, and the vessel drifted and injured another vessel, the tug was not liable therefor: The Greenpoint, 32 Fed. Rep. 799. In another case, where a tug undertook to tow a canal-boat heavily loaded with coal to a certain point, but ice prevented her doing so, it was held that she was bound to return to the startingpoint and thus take reasonable care of the boat and her cargo,, as the contract had not ended: The Snap, 24 Fed. Rep. 504. A tug is liable for damage to its tow, if it fails to cause her to anchor on the approach of a severe squall, which is evident, where prudence clearly requires such course, and where, by anchoring, the damage would be avoided: The Young America, 25 Fed. Rep. 207. So, negligence will be imputable to a tug which, to save herself, cuts loose a float which is lashed to her, without holding it with a line so as to prevent collision with helpless craft lying in the current below: The Chickasaw, 38 Fed. Rep. 358. See The Gratitude, 25 Fed. Rep. 160. The Thomas Purcell, Jr., 92 Fed. Rep. 406; s. c. 34 C. C. A. 419. 79 The Lyndhurst. 92 Fed. Rep. 681; Morse v. The Charles Runyon, 56 Fed. Rep. 312; aff'g s. c. 46 Fed. Rep. 813. Se The Battler, 55 Fed. Rep. 1006. 51 Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 925; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 552; aff'g s. c. 93 Fed. Rep. 510. 83 The Transfer No. 2, 56 Fed. Rep. 313 (blizzard of 1888). 83 Appeal of Cahill, 124 Fed. Rep. 63; The Carbonero, 122 Fed. Rep. 753; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 553; Reading Co. v. Munson, 122 Fed. Rep. 753; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 553; In re Moran, 120 Fed. Rep. 556. A tug which has towed a dumping-scow to sea is not at fault for not picking the scow up after she goes adrift by the giving way of the bitt of another scow to which she is attached, where the loose hawser is dragging, the water is shoal, and it is dangerous under all the circumstances to pick her up; nor is the tug at fault where she goes to the nearest refuge and leaves the other scow there, and, upon returning and finding the SCOW adrift at anchor in water where she cannot approach her, reports her condition as soon as possible and obtains other aid, but, in the meantime, the scow has gone ashore: The R. C. Veit, 56 Fed. Rep. 122. 84 The Athabasca, 45 Fed. Rep. 651; The F. & P. M. No. 2, 36 Fed. Rep. 264; Hall v. Chisholm, 117 Fed. Rep. 807; The Henry Buck, 38 Fed. Rep. 611; The Joggins Raft, 40 Fed. Rep. 523; Muntz v. Raft of Timber, 15 Fed. Rep. 557; The Seabrook v. A Raft, 40 Fed. Rep. 596; United States v. One Raft of Timber, 13 Fed. Rep. 796; The David Morris, Brown Adm. (U. S.) 274; Lallande v. The D. C., Jr., Newb. Adm. (U. S.) 501. 86 where no warning of its unmanageableness is given;85 and the tug will not be allowed to escape liability though notice of the unmanageable condition of the raft was given by other vessels, but without a sufficient description. The master of a tug at sea must use seamanship and care commensurate with the undertaking; however, the fact that he fails to keep near ports of safety will not constitute a breach of this duty where, at the time he started to go outside certain shoals which placed him beyond easy access to ports, the weather was fine, with no indication of an approaching storm.87 $6879. Care after Collision.-A tug whose tow is injured during a voyage, although without fault on the part of the tug, must use reasonable diligence to assist the tow and shield it from additional injury. Under this principle, a tug was held guilty of negligence where her tow was injured by the mutual fault of the tug and another vessel, and the tug, with notice that the tow was in a sinking condition, did not beach her as she might have done, so that the cargo might have been saved, but took her with other boats into deep water, where she sank. Where a tow escaped in a heavy gale by reason of the parting of the hawser without the fault of the tug, it was held that the tug was not imputable with negligence for its failure to send out searching parties, where it was shown that a search would have been useless. But the negligence of the tug in such a case can not be urged as a defense by a third vessel which has negligently injured the tow; that is, a vessel responsible for a collision cannot urge as a defense to a suit against her by the tow, that the tug towing the injured ressel was negligent in permitting the tow to sink after the collis ion.91 The Athabasca, 45 Fed. Rep. 651. So, a tug conveying an unmanageable raft will be liable for a collision between the raft and another vessel which the tug has invited by signals to approach: Benham v. The Niagara, 44 Fed. Rep. 775. Benham v. The Niagara, 44 Fed. Rep. 775. The Miranda, 43 Fed. Rep. 309; affg s. c. 40 Fed. Rep. 533. A failare to navigate close to ports will not be made to amount to a breach of duty by the fact that a representative of the raft owner protests against such a course, where the charter party contained no provision giving any one power to direct the master where to go: The Miranda, supra. 68 The Young America, 24 Blatchf. (U. S.) 479; s. c. 31 Fed. Rep. 749. 80 The Transfer No. 8, 88 Fed. Rep. 551. o The Miranda, 43 Fed. Rep. 309. 91 The Dauntless, 116 Fed. Rep. 543. § 6884. Dredged Entrance to Harbor Regarded as Inland Water. -A dredged entrance to a harbor is regarded as much a part of the inland water of the United States as the harbor within the entrance, within the meaning of an act of Congress excepting harbors and inland waters from the operation of rules solely applicable to the high seas and coast waters.1 The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459; s. c. 40 L. ed. 771; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 516. Article 25 of the Inland Navigation Rules, established by U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2883 (Act of Congress, June 7, 1897, ch. 4; 30 U. S. Stat. at Large 96) requiring steam-vessels in narrow channels, when it is safe and practicable, to keep to that side of the fairway or channel which is on their starboard side, is applicable to the navigation of a dredged channel in Chesapeake Bay, 600 feet wide, and is mandatory, superseding all prior rules and local customs: The Acilia, 120 Fed. Rep. 455; s. c. 56 C. C. A. 605; aff'g s. c. 108 Fed. Rep. 975; The Crathorne, 120 Fed. Rep. 455; s. c. 56 C. C. A. 605; aff'g s. c. 108 Fed. Rep. 975. |