ing-ship to be provided with an efficient fog-horn to be sounded by a bellows or other mechanical means." The liability for a default in this respect, however, is to be borne by the owners of the vessel, and not by the crew; thus not preventing a recovery by the crew for loss of their effects in cases where the crew was not privy to the violation of the statute.22

$6920. Fog-Signal Equipment must be Tested to Determine Efficiency.-It is the duty of a navigator of a vessel equipped with the statutory fog-signal apparatus to use due care to maintain its efficiency. Under this rule it has been held that a casual examination of a mechanical fog-horn before a bark left Philadelphia for Havana was insufficient to relieve her from liability for lack of an efficient foghorn, where, although she remained forty-three days in Havana, the horn was not tried until necessity for its use arose upon her return voyage.

23

$6921. Not Required to Carry Extra Fog-Signal Equipment.-A vessel provided with efficient fog-horn equipment at the commencement of a voyage will not be held in fault for failure to carry extra equipment in anticipation of a breakdown of the apparatus before determination of the voyage.24

6924. Weather conditions calling for 6926. Vessels not required to cease

signals and care.

6925. Lookouts.

navigation while in fog or thick weather.

6927. General duty of preparation for emergencies.

§ 6924. Weather Conditions Calling for Signals and Care.-The navigation laws require a vessel in fogs, mists, falling snows, or heavy rainstorms to proceed at a moderate speed, with careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions.1 The term "fog" as used in these laws is not to be taken in its narrow technical meaning, but rather as a generic term. It is the obscuration, and not its particular natural causes, which calls for cautious navigation.2 Courts have de

"The Parthian, 55 Fed. Rep. 426. The Niagara, 84 Fed. Rep. 902; &c. 55 U. S. App. 445; 28 C. C. A. 528.

*The Niagara, 84 Fed. Rep. 902; &c. 55 U. S. App. 445; 28 C. C. A. 428.

24 The Trave, 68 Fed. Rep. 390; rev'g s. c. 55 Fed. Rep. 117; The Chillian, 4 Asp. 473.

1

1 Article 16 International Rules. 2 Flint &c. R. Co. v. Marine Ins. Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 210; The Hudson City, 38 Fed. Rep. 446 (dark night);

clared the weather to be "foggy" within the meaning of the navigation acts where it was so thick that the ordinary signal-lights of a vessel could not be clearly distinguished within the range of the horn, whistle, or bell in the night, and so thick as to shut out the view of the sails or hull of a vessel by day. This condition has also been declared to exist where vessels could not see each other until within two hundred and fifty yards; but not where a light could be easily distinguished four hundred yards or more away. A vessel is under the obligation to observe the rules as to signals and speed not only when she is actually enveloped in a fog, but also when she is so near it that it is necessary that her position should be known to any vessel that may happen to be near.

7

$6925. Lookouts.-While these atmospheric conditions prevail, a vessel must maintain a vigilant lookout to guard against the possibility of collision. The lookout must be such as the atmospheric conditions require; and, consequently, it is not enough that a lookout sufficient for fair weather is maintained. But a vessel will not be held in fault for the lack of a sufficient lookout unless this fact contributed to the collision."

§ 6926. Vessels Not Required to Cease Navigation while in Fog or Thick Weather.-While the navigation laws do not in terms require vessels to bring up or lie hove to in thick weather, yet such a duty may be regarded as imposed in cases of special hazard, by the requirement that navigation shall be with careful regard to existing circumstances and conditions.10 It is not regarded as negligence per se for a vessel to leave port in a fog;11 and this is particularly the case with ferry-boats obliged from public necessity to make scheduled trips;12

The Rockaway, 25 Fed. Rep. 775
(snow squall).

The Pennland, 23 Fed. Rep. 551;
Dolner v. Monticello, 1 Holmes (U.
S.) 7.

The Eagle Point, 114 Fed. Rep.
971.

Le Lion, 84 Fed. Rep. 1011.

The Perkiomen, 27 Fed. Rep. 573. McCabe v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 234; The Shubert v. The Einar, 45 Fed. Rep. 497; The Twenty-One Friends, 33 Fed. Rep. 190; The Omega, 5 Hughes (U. S.) 487.

The Columbian, 91 Fed. Rep. 801 (two men on deck insufficient); Watts v. United States, 123 Fed. Rep. 105; The Eleanora, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 88 (two men on deck); The Nacoochee, 24 Blatchf. (U. S.) 99;

s. c. 28 Fed. Rep. 462 (two men on deck).

"The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330; s. c. 34 L. ed. 687; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122.

10 Article 16 International Rules. As a general rule, there is no obligation resting on a sailing-vessel proceeding on her voyage to shorten sail or lie to because the night is so dark that an approaching vessel cannot be seen: The Morning Light, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 550; s. c. 17 L. ed. 862.

"The Arthur Orr, 69 Fed. Rep. 350. The English cases seem to hold that an unnecessary leaving of a port in a fog is negligence: The Otter, L. R. 4 Adm. & Ecc. 203; s. c. 2 Asp. (N. S.) 208.

12 The Orange. 46 Fed. Rep. 408; Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 510.

and they will not be held in fault for a collision if they are carefully and skillfully handled.13 A vessel slowed down to a speed which will not afford sufficient steerage way should, as a matter of prudence, come to anchor.14

§ 6927. General Duty of Preparation for Emergencies.-The navigator of a vessel in a fog should take every precaution to meet any emergency which may arise; 15 and where ordinary nautical skill and prudence are exercised, a vessel will not be held liable for a mere error of judgment of her navigator in an emergency.16 Where vessels are navigated with ordinary prudence and skill and in compliance with the rules of navigation as to signals and lookouts, and a collision results, it will be attributed to "inevitable accident," and neither vessel will be deemed negligent.17

ARTICLE III. SPEED AND COURSE OF NAVIGATION DURING FOG.

SECTION

6930. Provision speed.

SECTION

as to moderate 6933. Duty to stop on hearing sig

nal.

6931. Further of duty to proceed 6934. Starboard rule inapplicable to

with moderate speed.

6932. Speed of sail-vessels.

vessels navigating in fog. 6935. Burden of proof where mod

erate speed is exceeded.

"Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., anchored in a channel at a place to

93 Fed. Rep. 510.

"The H. F. Dimock, 77 Fed. Rep. 226; The Martello, 153 U. S. 64; s. c. 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 723; The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330; s. c. 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 125.

McCabe v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 238. Where a steamer was approaching upon a schooner's lee beam in a fog, and the master of the schooner had notice of the imminence of collision, and that the steamer was backing, about two minutes before collision, it was his duty to luff, as he might have done, in order to aid in avoiding a collision, since this was clearly a safe manœuvre and could not possibly do harm, and was one of the ordinary practices of seamen, within articles 21 (note), 27 and 29 of the International Navigation Rules; and the damages should therefore be divided: The Patria, 92 Fed. Rep. 411.

The Taurus, 95 Fed. Rep. 699 (tug collided with a rock-breaker

which it had been removed only a short time before, the master of the tug being ignorant of the removal, and navigating the vessel on the theory that the rock-breaker was in its former position).

17 Dunton v. Allan S. S. Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 590; s. c. 55 C. C. A. 541; aff'g s. c. 115 Fed. Rep. 250; Van Dyke v. The Bridgeport, 35 Fed. Rep. 159. Collision between two schooners sailing in thick and foggy weather, with a fresh wind from the southwest, both maintaining vigilant lookout and frequent signals by horn, and both having the same general course and being closehauled, one being at the time on her starboard tack, headed southeast by south, the other on her port tack. headed southwest, neither being able to see or hear the other's signals until immediately before the collision, when they both acted promptly and went to starboard,-is inevitable accident: The Rebecca Shepherd, 32 Fed. Rep. 926.

§ 6930. Provision as to Moderate Speed.-The navigation rules require vessels in a fog, mist, falling snow or heavy rainstorms to proceed at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions.' The term "moderate speed" in these rules has been defined to be such a rate as will enable a steamer to stop in time to avoid collision after an approaching vessel comes in sight, provided such approaching vessel is herself going at the moderate speed required by law. Circumstances may make it dangerous to proceed at such moderate rate,3-as where a vessel, owing to her having little cargo and being very light, could not be properly controlled at a lower rate of speed. The term is a relative one, and the time and place and all other conditions must be taken into account before judgment can be pronounced on any given rate. The rule is clearly violated where a vessel proceeds through a fog at full speed," or with speed only slightly slackened. The courts generally regard a rate of less than four knots an hour a safe speed, and a speed exceeding that rate as immoderate. Five miles an hour in a fog with

1U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2868, 2880 and 2890. See The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330; s. c. 34 L. ed. 687; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122.

2 See The Bolivia, 49 Fed. Rep. 169; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 26; 1 C. C. A. 221; The Cincinnati, 95 Fed. Rep. 302; The City of New York, 49 Fed. Rep. 956; s. c. 1 U. S. App. 72; 1 C. C. A. 483; Hardy v. The Raleigh, 44 Fed. Rep. 781; McCabe v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 234; The Northern Queen, 117 Fed. Rep. 906; The St. John, 29 Fed. Rep. 221; The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330; s. c. 34 L. ed. 687; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; The Shady Side, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 132.

The Northern Queen, 117 Fed. Rep. 906.

4 The Eagle Point, 114 Fed. Rep. 971; The Vindomora v. Lamb, [1891] A. C. 1; s. c. 63 L. T. 749.

The Eagle Point, 114 Fed. Rep. 971.

The Albany, 91 Fed. Rep. 805; The City of Atlanta, 26 Fed. Rep. 456; The City of New York, 15 Fed. Rep. 624; The City of New York, 35 Fed. Rep. 604; The Eagle Point, 114 Fed. Rep. 971; The George E. Starr, 47 Fed. Rep. 749; The Howard, 30 Fed. Rep. 280; In re La Bourgogne, 117 Fed. Rep. 261; The Parthian, 55 Fed. Rep. 426; rev'g s. c. 43 Fed. Rep. 175; The Pottsville, 24 Fed. kep. 655; The Stamford, 27 Fed. Rep. 227.

"The Patria, 92 Fed. Rep. 411 (two-thirds of full speed not a moderate speed); The Saale, 63 Fed. Rep. 478; s. c. 11 C. C. A. 302; aff'g s. c. 59 Fed. Rep. 716; The Trave, 55 Fed. Rep. 117; s. c. rev'd on other grounds, 68 Fed. Rep. 390; Leonard v. Whitwill, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 638. Where the full speed of a steamer was ten and a half or eleven knots, a reduction of from one to one and a half knots in a fog still leaves the speed excessive. The reduction even in a moderate fog should be at least to two-thirds of full speed: The Cheruskia, 92 Fed. Rep. 683.

9

The Albany, 91 Fed. Rep. 805; The American Mail Steamship Co. v. The Charles F. Mayer, 115 Fed. Rep. 378 (eight knots an hour); Boston Towboat Co. v. Donnell, 89 Fed. Rep. 757; s. c. 32 C. C. A. 331 (eight or nine knots an hour); The Catalonia, 43 Fed. Rep. 396 (more than seven knots an hour in a much frequented portion of the ocean); The Columbian, 91 Fed. Rep. 801 (nine or ten knots); The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540; s. c. 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491; aff'g s. c. 74 Fed. Rep. 899; 21 C. C. A. 162 (seven miles an hour); Consolidation Coal Co. v. The Ad

some sea and wind on Lake Michigan is not an excessive speed for a steamer.10 A steamer running at a rate as high as eight and onehalf knots an hour on a night that is dark and rainy, but not so much so as to render light invisible at a distance sufficient to avoid other vessels at this rate of speed, is not required to reduce her speed under the rules."

§ 6931. Further of Duty to Proceed with Moderate Speed.-The duty to reduce speed and proceed cautiously during a fog is particularly imperative where the course of the vessel is in the known track of passing vessels,12 or in proximity to piers and wharves,13 or