In the naval service there is probably no rule of the road more conscientiously observed than the implied admonition of art. 29, international and inland rules, to keep a proper lookout.1 In the merchant service, where vessels of corresponding tonnage carry much smaller crews, the relative scarcity of men results in many more cases of faulty collision attributable at least in part, according to the case books, to improper lookout. It is interesting to note that of some 200 such cases in the records very few involved vessels of the Navy. As might be expected, about three times as many cases occur in inland waters as on the high seas; a fact no doubt due to the relative congestion of shipping and not to the maintenance of a less efficient lookout in crowded waters. However, as evidenced by more than 50 specific findings of faulty lookout on the high seas, there is apparently some tendency by navigators to let down on the requirements once a vessel is clear of the land.
But if the provision of art. 29 in regard to keeping a proper lookout is negative in form, nothing could be more positive than the obligation as construed by the civil courts and, it might be added, by naval courts and boards. Although the present international rules date from 1890 and the inland rules from 1897, as early as 1833 an American sailing vessel was held liable for a collision with another sailing vessel having the right of way because she was navigating at sea, in daylight in clear weather, with no watch on deck but the man at the wheel,2 and for more than a hundred years our courts have been enforcing careful vigilance by those entrusted with the navigation of vessels as a requisite of common seamanship. It is an obligation that applies to all vessels of a size capable of committing injuries.3 As held in a collision between two small vessels on a clear night a few years ago,
The failure to keep a lookout is a violation of the general rule to prevent collisions between vessels, and nothing can exonerate a vessel from such failure, unless it should appear that the collision would have occurred notwithstanding such failure. This rule is undoubtedly as applicable to the boats of the motor class as to ocean vessels.4
The obligation should be regarded as applying at all times when under way, day or night, and even, under some circumstances, when at anchor. For while the statute does not specify a watch on a vessel at anchor, and a vessel securely anchored in a safe harbor, with proper lights, in ordinary weather need not have one, yet it was held in an old case that a schooner at anchor inside the Delaware breakwater during a storm, when numerous vessels were seeking shelter, was in fault for not having a watch on deck, and when sunk by another vessel which was properly navigated was unable to recover damages. The decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.5 Again, in a Massachusetts case it was held that when a vessel is at anchor in a place where other vessels are frequently passing, and where navigation is difficult and dangerous because of shoals and a channel only a mile and a half wide, special care and vigilance are required, and she must have a good lookout and an anchor light of the regular pattern lit and burning. To have a watch on deck is not sufficient if there is no one on lookout at the time of the collision to warn off an approaching vessel.6 And of course the well-known liability of a vessel for any damage which it may do to another through dragging anchor makes a proper lookout imperative whenever conditions create a risk of such an occurrence, as when a vessel was anchored in New York Harbor during a winter gale that reached a velocity of 88 miles an hour.7
A lookout has been defined by the federal court as a person who is specially charged with the duty of observing the lights, sounds, echoes, or any obstruction to navigation with that thoroughness which the circumstances permit.8 The words specially charged imply that such person shall have no other duties which detract in any way from the keeping of a proper lookout. Thus it has been held in numerous cases that because the lookout must devote his attention to this duty, the officer of the deck or the helmsman cannot properly serve as lookout.9 Even on a slow moving tug with a tow, the duty is not legally complied with by the officer in charge of navigation keeping a lookout from the pilot-house.10 Where the captain of a steamer is acting at the same time as pilot and lookout, the vessel has not a proper lookout, and the owners may be liable for the damage caused by such omission.11 A seaman who had been dividing his attention between looking out and reefing sail was held not to be a vigilant lookout,12 and where the only two men on the deck of a schooner navigating at night were engaged in taking down sail, it was held that neither one nor both seamen constituted a proper lookout, and accordingly the schooner was at fault for colliding with another schooner having the right of way.13 A vessel backing out from a pier in a fog was at fault for requiring the lookout in her bow to take in the bow line, since this interfered with the degree of vigilance required under such conditions.14 In still another case, where the lookout on a car float alongside a tug was directed to concentrate his attention on the East River piers, so that he did not see a large block of floating ice which forced tug and tow to collide with a steamer alongside a pier, it was held that the tug should have detailed an additional man for the general lookout duty.15 However, in a very early decision the Supreme Court found that the man blowing the fog horn on a sailing vessel was a proper lookout,16 and in 1911 the Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rendered a similar decision in refusing to hold a schooner guilty of contributory fault for colliding with a steamer when it was shown that the mate, in a dense fog, was acting as lookout and sounding the fog horn at the same time, but that all his duties were properly done.17
It is not meant to imply that whenever two vessels collide, the mere proof of improper lookout on either vessel, in the technical sense, will ipso facto condemn that vessel for the collision. On the contrary, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the absence of a lookout is unimportant where the approaching vessel was seen long before the collision occurred;18 that it is immaterial where it does not appear that the collision could in any wise be attributed to his absence;19 and that the absence of a lookout stationed where he should be will not render a vessel in fault for a collision where she was navigated exactly as she should have been had there been a lookout reporting the situation.20 As said by the Circuit Court of Appeals in a later case, where an overtaking vessel rammed the vessel ahead
Absence of a lookout is not entitled to weight in cases where the proof is satisfactory that the vessel in fault saw the other in time to have taken every precaution it was its duty to take, and which, if taken, would have avoided the collision.21
But the difficulty in practice is, of course, to overcome the presumption of fault which the absence of a proper lookout entails and furnish such satisfactory proof. It is only when it can be made clear that the lack of a lookout could not have contributed to the collision that it will be excused.22 Two illustrative cases may be mentioned here. In one of them, a dredge at work in a channel during a dense fog, while sounding a fog bell at intervals of less than a minute which could be heard many times the distance of visibility, was run down by a stern-wheel steamer making 15 knots, and the presence or absence of an efficient lookout on the dredge was held immaterial.23 In another case, in a crossing situation on the East River, a burdened ferry stopped well off the course of a privileged tug to let her pass, but was rammed when the latter suddenly changed her course; it was held with some degree of reason that the want of a proper lookout on the burdened vessel was not a contributory fault.24
Notwithstanding such occasional exceptions, the navigator should always adhere to the general admiralty rule that,
The strict performance of a vessel’s duty to maintain proper lookout is required and failure to do so, especially when other craft are known to be in the vicinity, is culpable negligence.25
Many court decisions on the subject indicate that the strict performance referred to means, at least in most circumstances, not only that lookouts shall be free from other duties but that they shall be (1) qualified by a certain amount of experience as seaman, (2) vigilant and alert, (3) properly stationed, and (4) in such numbers as circumstances require in order that the vessel may avoid risk of collision.26
(1) Experience.—No definite minimum experience requirement has been laid down by the courts as qualifying a man for duty as lookout, but several decisions have shown the necessity of some attention to this point. In an early case the district court of New York held that the steward, who was standing by the companion way, and was no mariner, and had not been stationed as a lookout, was not a proper lookout;27 and 14 years later the district court of Pennsylvania held that it is doubtful whether a steward is a competent lookout, and he certainly is not when his attention is divided between such duty and the duties belonging to his employment as steward.28 The Circuit Court of Appeals has said that besides watching for lights ahead and on crossing courses a lookout should also be watchful for things adrift, such as a disabled launch, so near as to be likely to drift against his vessel, and a tug with a long tow must extend this watchfulness the full length of the tow;29 in another decision the Circuit Court found that a steamer should have a “trustworthy” lookout.30 It was held a fault rendering a steamship liable for a collision with a schooner to have as the only lookout in a dense fog, on a frequented part of the Atlantic coast, a boy of 16 years who had been on the water but a few weeks.31 When the lookout on a moving vessel confused the lights of an anchored vessel with others on the shore 5 miles distant, the vessel was not relieved from liability for collision with the anchored vessel.32 In two other decisions implying that a lookout must have some knowledge of his responsibilities that comes with experience the Circuit Court of Appeals in New York held,
The failure of the lookout of a steamer to report a vessel when discovered is negligence, though the master and pilot were on the bridge.33
A lookout’s duty is to report as soon as he sees any vessel, with which there is danger of collision, or which in any way may affect the navigation of his own, and he cannot speculate on the probabilities of collision; such responsibility being for the master.34
In the naval service it is suggested that except on the smallest vessels the lookout might well be a petty officer. On a capital ship, when we consider the value of the property at risk, the intelligence that should be demanded in reporting various kinds of lights, with correct bearings, and the legal importance attached to a proper performance, the duty should by no means be regarded as beneath the dignity of a chief petty officer. It goes without saying that the choice of a competent lookout is only half the requirement, the other half being an insistence by the officer of the deck that reports to him be made promptly and correctly, at times of good visibility as well as bad, so that in darkness or in thick weather they will be rendered as a matter of habit. Perhaps it is significant that more than 70 per cent of the cases cited in this article were clear weather collisions.
(2) Degree of vigilance.—That a high degree of vigilance is constantly required of the lookout is evident from the findings in numerous cases. A high degree, though not an unreasonable degree. Thus, the district court of Maryland declined to condemn a steamer for failure to discover a sailing vessel without lights on a dark night, merely because the sailing vessel might have been discovered in time to avoid collision if an officer had been constantly sweeping the horizon with a good pair of glasses.35 But a vessel’s failure to see the lights on another vessel, properly set and burning, where due to want of vigilance, renders it liable for the resulting collision;36 and a vessel’s failure to discover the lights of a passing vessel in time to avoid collision is tantamount to having no lookout.37 An overtaking vessel without lights in a convoy during the war was liable for a collision with the ship ahead because the lookout failed to keep under close observation the other vessel, and to give warning of the close approach in time to avoid collision.38
That it is incumbent on a vessel navigating New York Harbor and vicinity, even in the daytime, to maintain a vigilant lookout, is a requirement which the Supreme Court declined to review.39 In another New York case, this time in the harbor of Buffalo, it was said by the district court,
It is the imperative duty of a steamship when making a landing at a dock in a river where other vessels are constantly passing, to maintain an efficient lookout, and the absence of such lookout cannot be excused on the ground that all the crew were otherwise engaged.40
And in an Alaska case, where a tug negligently allowed a loaded barge to be cast upon the rocks during a snowstorm, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals awarding a decree to the barge owners which held that,
The strict rules with respect to the necessity of having a lookout properly stationed and devoting his whole attention to the situation ahead is not limited to vessels navigating harbors, but applies as well to a vessel navigating along the coast, where danger from striking the land is as great as the danger of collision in harbor.41
In a collision between a steamship and a sailing vessel the Circuit Court of Appeals found that the duty of the steamship to maintain a constant lookout is especially imperative in favor of a vessel which under the rules has the right of way.42 Other decisions emphasize the fact that the degree of vigilance exercised by the lookout is quite likely to be judged by the single standard of its effectiveness in preventing collision:
The failure of a steamer to see a sailing vessel which she ought to have discovered, in time to give her sufficient room, is a fault rendering the steamer liable if it results from insufficient lookout.43
The excuse that a vessel is unable to determine (by reason of the darkness and the direction of the wind) from the lights of the other vessel, on what course she is sailing, and which is the privileged vessel, cannot be invoked where, by reason of the inefficiency of her lookout, she failed to discover the approaching vessel until the two were in close proximity, and she had no time to study the situation.44
A burdened vessel which fails, through the inexcusable absence of her lookout, to maintain it steadily, and thus causes a collision, is liable.45
Where the evidence leaves no doubt that two blasts of a whistle were given by one steamer, which were heard on the other as only a single blast, the distance being such that both ought to have been heard, the court must conclude, in the absence of other explanation, that the officers and lookout were inattentive.46
It is a fault for the lookout of a vessel to leave his post after reporting the light of another vessel.47
The degree of vigilance required is, of course, greatly increased under way in foggy weather, and absence or insufficiency of lookout under such conditions under way can never be justified by the plea that visibility was so low as to render a lookout useless. If he cannot see, at least he can hear. Under the general admiralty rules it is the duty of every vessel, when navigating in a fog, to maintain a lookout in a proper position, who shall be charged with no other duty.48 A local custom cannot excuse a vessel from observing this rule.49 As said by the Circuit Court of Appeals,
The denser the fog and the worse the weather are greater cause for vigilance, and a vessel cannot excuse failure to maintain lookout on the ground that the weather was so thick that another vessel could not be seen until actually in collision.50
However, as brought out by the Circuit Court in the collision of the Bailey Gatzert with a Columbia River dredge, already cited, this injunction apparently does not apply with the same force to a vessel at anchor in fog, provided she is making proper fog signals.51
The degree of vigilance required is in no way lessened because a vessel in a collision situation may happen to have the right of way. In a number of decisions preceding the present rules it was held that if a vessel having the right of way held her course, it was all an approaching vessel had a right to require, and in the case of a small sailing schooner run down by a large steamship in Chesapeake Bay the Supreme Court held that whether she had a proper lookout or not was immaterial.52 But as early as 1874 the district court of Maine established the rule that,
A vessel having the right of way must keep a Proper lookout and use proper seamanship to avoid collision.53
Accordingly, as said by the federal court m the Kaga Maru case, a vessel is not relieved of her obligation to maintain a Proper lookout because she is the preferred vessel, if prudent navigation with the aid of a good lookout would have avoided the collision;54 and in a New York Harbor collision decided in 1928, a steamer Vuthout a lookout was held equally at fault with an army dredge on the wrong side of the channel with which it collided.55 Similarly, the failure of a tug to keep a lookout rendered it liable for the death of a man in a rowboat on the Delaware River, on the showing that notwithstanding the latter’s contributory negligence in attempting to cross the tug’s course, a vigilant lookout would have discovered his peril in time for the tug to avoid him. In this case the tug was flanked on either side by a loaded car float, neither float having a lookout.56
The old idea that to be efficient, a seaman must be uncomfortable is happily disappearing in the naval service. In this connection it might be well to remember that a lookout who is freezing from exposure in a cold wind can scarcely be expected to be vigilant. The writer remembers with some feeling his early service as a merchant seaman, with winter night watches in northern waters, out on the unprotected bow of a fast passenger steamer. After a few moments of this, there would be little thought given to approaching lights, or of anything else except getting in out of the weather. A canvas dodger would have worked wonders, as indeed it will with the lookout on the nose of a present-day cruiser, heading into a breeze at 20 knots. The officer of the deck who expects his lookouts to be alert will do well to assure himself that the man performing this duty are adequately clothed and as well protected from the weather as conditions will permit.
(3) Proper station.—Although the statute is silent as to the specific location of the lookout, a long line of court decisions has well established his proper position to be as low down and as far forward in the ship as conditions allow. As said by the Circuit Court of Appeals,
he is required by good navigation to be placed at the point best suited for the purpose alike of hearing and observing the approach of objects likely to be brought into collision with the vessel, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the conditions of the weather.57
Accordingly, the Vedamore, a large ocean steamship navigating Chesapeake Bay at night in fog, was at fault because her only lookout was in the crow’s nest 60 feet above the deck and 100 feet from the stem. It was held to be the duty of another ocean steamer passing out of the Delaware at night to maintain her lookout as far forward and as near the water as possible.58 In a collision in Boston Harbor in which a ferryboat was sunk by a mud scow the pilot-house was declared not a proper place for the former’s lookout;59 and in another case, stationing the lookout on top of the pilot-house 140 feet from the bow of a steamship navigating in a dense mist, with visibility of 100 feet, was a gross fault.60 A lookout on the bridge without any in the bow is insufficient;61 and in another collision in fog previously cited the steamship Sagamore was held at fault for not maintaining lookout from the forecastle head despite lookouts both in the crow’s nest and on the bridge.62 In a collision on a clear night at sea, when the usual order was reversed by having a sailing vessel sink a steamship, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that every steamer must have at least one lookout in the eyes of the ship.63 In a collision in a dense fog on Puget Sound the court found a tug at fault for having the lookout by the pilot-house, but only 12 feet from the stem.64 In the Winnisimmet, mentioned above, the judicial attitude was thus summarized:
The courts have been rigid in holding vessels to maintaining lookouts as far forward and as near the water as possible. Especially where the water is dark, with otherwise a fairly clear night, it is important that the lookout should be as near it as possible, in order that his eye may follow the surface, and thus be in position to detect anything low down which may be approaching.
When physical conditions prevent, of course a lookout need not be kept forward of the bridge. An ocean tug whose lookout was in the pilot-house because green seas were sweeping the bow,65 and a steamship navigating the Atlantic on a clear night with her lookouts on the bridge because of the coldness of the weather and the freezing of spray forward66 were both absolved from blame. If the weather is clear and the lookout is sufficiently vigilant it really matters little where he is stationed; but the practical catch that goes with failure to place him away forward is that the burden of proof devolves upon the offender to show that the lookout functioned as well as he would have done if properly placed. As an example in point, the fact that the lookout on a steamer at sea on a clear night was stationed on the bridge instead of forward was held not to be a fault in a collision with a fishing vessel where the evidence showed that each vessel seasonably discovered the other and kept her under continuous observation.67 But in another case, involving a tug and a sailing vessel on the Hudson River, it was held that,
The position of the captain of a schooner abaft the wheel is not a proper position for a lookout, when sailing full and free with a strong wind; and in case of a conflict of testimony, observation reported from such a position must be deemed partial, interrupted, and incomplete, and entitled to far less weight than that of a lookout properly stationed.68
The decisions are clear in requiring that the lookout have unobstructed visibility ahead and on both bows. Hence if has been held that rule 38 (now rule 22) of the Board of Supervising Inspectors, requiring passenger steamers and ferryboats to keep one of the crew on watch in or near the pilot-house does not supersede the general rule requiring a lookout forward.69 In the case of the Scandinavia it was pointed out that the duty to maintain a lookout on the lower deck of a ferryboat is not statutory but is imposed by the general maritime law.70 The same principle was established in several decisions requiring that a tug must keep a lookout at the bow of a tow alongside where it projects beyond the tug;71 and where other traffic may be expected, a vessel towing astern of a tug should maintain as careful a lookout as the tug herself, and be prepared, if necessary to avoid collision, to sheer out or cut her hawser.72 However, should a collision occur, it is Well to bear in mind that clear visibility, rather than technical location, is the essential thing, and that after all, as expressed by the district court of Virginia in a collision between a government steam launch and a fishing steamer near Norfolk,
All that the law requires with respect to a lookout is that there shall be someone properly stationed to best observe, see, and hear the approach of other vessels; and a small launch, only 61 feet long, having her pilot-house, in which her navigator stood, well forward, with open windows all around, and other members of the crew on the deck, cannot be held in fault for a collision in the daytime, in fair weather, because she did not have a lookout specially stationed where she was the Privileged vessel, entitled to keep her course and speed, and the absence of such lookout did not contribute to the collision.73
While in the absence of special conditions the place for the lookout is at the bow,74 there are circumstances which require a lookout also at the stern. Thus it has been held that an ocean steamer starting her propeller in order to leave her slip, in which there were other vessels, should have a lookout at the stern to give warning of danger to such vessels from the motion of the propeller;75 that a vessel backing out of her slip must keep a lookout astern;76 as must a tug floating down stream bow towards the shore,77 a vessel drifting backwards with the tide,79 or in fact a vessel making sternway for any purpose, as when backing and filling to turn around, or when backing into her slip.80 And a steam tug which towed a barge past a vessel at anchor so close as to cause a collision between her tow and the vessel without keeping a proper lookout at the stern was solely liable.81
In general, an overtaken vessel is under no duty to keep a lookout aft to prevent being run down by the overtaking vessel, but has a right to act on the presumption that the latter will keep clear,82 and the Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has gone so far as to rule that in inland waters, where the overtaking vessel has no right to pass without a signal being given and answered, the overtaken vessel is not required to look astern before she changes course, however abruptly; if the overtaking vessel comes so close without signaling that a sudden change of course by the vessel ahead brings about a collision, the fault is that of the overtaking vessel.83 However, an overtaking vessel is always entitled to notice that the other vessel is ahead of her, and if at night, in lieu of a fixed stern light, an overtaken seagoing vessel elects to use a flare-up light, as permitted under international rules, then it is clearly her duty to maintain an efficient lookout astern and to display the flare-up light as soon as the overtaking vessel can be seen. Good seamanship would seem to go a step farther here, and require the precaution of always at least looking aft before changing course or reducing speed, because of the possibility of embarrassing an overtaking vessel. As said by the Supreme Court in the case of the Illinois, when a sailing vessel, failing to notice a following steamship, tacked to avoid floating ice in Delaware Bay and was sunk by the steamship:
While a man stationed at the stem as a lookout is not at all times necessary, no vessel should change her course materially without having first made such an observation in all directions as will enable her to know how what she is about to do will affect others in her immediate vicinity.84
In a collision several years ago between the U.S.S. Bell and a steam lighter, both vessels were leaving Boston Harbor in a thick fog, with the destroyer leading. The Bell stopped without warning when it appeared that the gate in a steel submarine net stretched across the north channel during the war was closed; and the lighter, attempting to sheer out, collided with the depth charge sponson, injuring both vessels. The Circuit Court of Appeals found both at fault: the lighter for excessive speed in striking a vessel which was dead in the water, and the destroyer for not keeping a proper lookout astern when she knew another vessel was following, although she had two depth-bomb men aft who had not been instructed to report approaching vessels.85
(4) Number of lookouts.—There can be no doubt from the decisions that under some circumstances more than one lookout is required, although ordinarily one with that exclusive duty will be sufficient. In a collision at sea in a dense fog at night where, besides a man forward, stationed as a lookout, there were two persons on watch in the pilot-house of a large ocean steamer, the lookout was held sufficient.86 On the other hand, in a decision of the Supreme Court relating to a collision on the Columbia River between a passenger steamship and a dredge at anchor, it was held that,
Where the circumstances require more than ordinary care, as in the case of a steamer running at a speed of 15 miles an hour, on a dark night in a narrow channel, where there is a great prob- ability of meeting other vessels, a deck watch composed of the river pilot in command, stationed upon the bridge just above the pilot-house, a man at the wheel, and a lookout upon the forecastle head, is insufficient, and prudent navigation requires a lookout to be stationed on either bow.87
In a collision during the Spanish-American War a few miles off Fire Island at night in a thick fog, the armored cruiser Columbia sank a British freighter. The Columbia was making 6 knots, and in accordance with the orders of the squadron commander showing no lights and making no fog signals. The freighter was making 3 ½ knots and sounding regular fog signals. In an action several years later the cruiser was found solely at fault, the court commenting on the fact that under such circumstances unusual vigilance was required, and that her lookouts were quite insufficient, being only those usually maintained in clear weather—one at each end of the bridge, 94 feet from the stem and 38 feet above the water, and two farther aft.88 While it is true that in this case the real fault lay in not having the forward lookouts out on the bow, yet it is significant that here was an instance of improper lookout with four men detailed to exclusive lookout duty. On a large vessel in thick weather there is a positive obligation to have lookouts stationed so as to give the earliest possible warning of approaching vessels from whatever direction they may come.
It may seem to the reader that the courts have given undue emphasis to the necessity of lookouts when their function is a duty already laid on the officer of the deck. It may be argued that an officer of Ike deck who is worth his salt will be the first to discover the approach of anything which might endanger his vessel. The explanation can only be the obvious one that the commissioned or licensed watch stander has other concurrent duties which he cannot neglect, and the law contemplates that every vessel under way shall exercise vigilance which is continuous and unbroken, both for her own protection and that of other vessels. However, it is doubtful if the civil courts are more exacting in this regard than are the naval courts and boards which must be encountered by the officer in the service whenever a naval vessel is involved in collision. With them the question of proper lookout in collision cases is as inevitable as the requirement that all standings be preceded by heaving the lead. In a recent hearing that followed a collision between a vessel of the base force and a merchant ship, the board of investigation found the commanding officer at fault for improper lookout on the technical point that the quartermaster of the Watch was serving as lookout while the Vessel was leaving port, although the collision occurred in broad daylight with excellent visibility, and the testimony showed that the approaching vessel was sighted as she emerged from a channel entrance by the commanding officer, the officer of the deck, the man at the wheel, and the lookout himself. This illustrates the importance that may be attached by one’s brother-officers to maintaining a technically proper lookout even when visibility is the best.
From the standpoint of the navigator who is interested in avoiding liability for collision—and who of us is not?—which usually means avoiding the collision itself, perhaps there could be no more appropriate conclusion to these remarks on a proper lookout than the following words of the United States Supreme Court, delivered in a case that arose out of a collision between a steamship and a brig outside New York Harbor on a foggy night in 1865:
The duty of the lookout is of the highest importance. Upon nothing else does the safety of those concerned so much depend. A moment’s negligence on his part may involve the loss of his vessel with all the property and the lives of all on board. The same consequence may ensue to the vessel with which his shall collide. In the performance of this duty the law requires indefatigable care and sleepless vigilance. ... It is the duty of all courts charged with the administration of this branch of our jurisprudence to give it the fullest effect whenever the circumstances are such as to call for its application. Every doubt as to the performance of the duty, and the effect of nonperformance, should be resolved against the vessel sought to be inculpated until she vindicates herself by testimony to the contrary.89
In a recent decision of an old case by the Federal Court, a United States submarine has been held solely at fault for sinking a small schooner near the western end of the Cape Cod Canal shortly after the war, on a clear night with smooth sea and all lights burning brightly, a charge of improper lookout being sustained. In its decision, the court recognizes the extremely limited space available for a lookout on the bow of an R-boat, but declares that every moving vessel must maintain a competent, careful, and efficient lookout stationed on the forward part of the vessel, and that the rule applies with equal force to submarines or other naval vessels, in the absence of statutory exception. (Me. 1934) 8 F Supp 443.
Ships are the delivery wagons of the sea. They play an important rôle in the proper development of foreign trade. Ships may of themselves create new markets. They protect those developed through other means. Fast, economical friendly service is essential to the sale of American products abroad. —Shorts about Ships.
1. Art. 29, international and inland rules, provides: Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner or master or crew thereof, from the consequence of any neglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper lookout, 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.
Chap 22, Sec. 7, paragraph 880, U. S. Navy Regulations, requires that the commanding officer shall always, when under way, and if necessary, when at anchor, have a lookout stationed aloft during the day. At night he shall have as many lookouts stationed as are necessary. He shall take steps to insure that lookouts are proficient in their duties.
Rule 25 of the Supervising Steamboat Inspectors requires that all steamers navigating the ocean during the nighttime shall have a lookout at or near the bow.
2. The Rebecca (NY 1833) Fed Cas no. 11,168.
3 The Harry Lynn (Wash 1893) 56 F 271.
4. Brindle v. The Eagle (Alaska 1922) 6 Alaska 503.
5. The Clara (NY 1880) 26 L Ed 145.
6. The Henry Warner (Mass 1886) 29 F 601.
7. The Forde (CCA 1919) 262 F 127.
8. The Tillicum (Wash 1914) 217 F 976.
9. The Kaga Maru (Wash 1927) 18 F (2d) 295. The Donau (Wash 1931) 49 F 2d 799.
10. The City of Philadelphia (Pa 1894) 62 F 617; The Sea Breeze Fed Cas 12572a.
11.Bill v. Smith (1872) 39 Conn 206.
12. The Twenty-one Friends (Pa 1887) 33 F 190.
13. The Fannie Hayden (Me 1905) 137 F 280.
14. The Albatross (Mass 1921) 273 F 285.
15. New York and Oriental SS. Co. v. NY, NH, and H Ry (NY 1906) 143 F 991.
16. The Nacoochee v. Moseley (NY 1890) 34 L Ed 687.
17. The Pallanza (NY 1911) 189 F 43.
18. The Dexter (Md 1875) 23 L Ed 84; The George W. Elder (CCA 1918) 249 F 956.
19. The Tacoma (Wash 1888) 36 L Ed 469.
20. Elcoate v. The Plymothian (Va 1894) 42 L Ed 519.
21. The M. J. Rudolph (NY 1923) 292 F 740.
22. The Titan (CC 1885) 23 F 413.
23. The Bailey Gatzert (Ore 1910) 179 F 44.
24. The N and W #2, (NY 1903) 122 F 171.
25. The Kaga Maru (Wash 1927) 18 F (2d) 295.
26. For a discussion of court interpretation of “risk of collision” see “The Crossing Situation", April, 1935, Proceedings.
27. The Gratitude (NY 1868) Fed Cas no. 5,704.
28. The Bessie Morris (Pa 1882) 13 F 397.
29. Cook v. Horan Towing Co (CCA NY 1911) 19 F 48.
30. The Pilot Boy (SC 1902) 115 F 873.
31. The Pottsville (Pa 1882) 12 F 631.
32. The John G. McCullough (CCA Va 1916) 239 F 111.
33. The Hansa (CCA NY 1870) Fed Cas no. 6,036.
34. The Madison (CCA NY 1918) 250 F 850.
35. The Leversons (Md 1882) 10 F 753.
36. The Buenos Aires (CCA NY 1924) 5 F (2d) 425.
37. Pendleton Bros. v. Morgan (Md 1926) 11 F (2d) 67.
38. The War Pointer (CCA Va 1921) 277 F 718.
39. The Transfer No. 15 (CCA NY 1917) 243 F 174.
40. The Northland (NY 1903) 125 F 58.
41. The British Columbia Mills Tug and Barge Co. v. Mylroie 66 L Ed 807.
42. The Dorchester (1908) 167 F 124.
43. The Belgenland (1880) 29 L Ed 152.
44. The Queen Elizabeth 100 F 874 (reversed on other grounds), 122 F 406.
45. The Robert Graham Dun (CCA 1895) 70 F 270.
46. The Ottoman (CCA MaSs 1896) 74 F 316.
47. Wilders SS. Co. v. Low (Hawaii 1901) 112 F 161; The Havre (NY 1867) Fed Cas 6,232.
48. The Wilbert L. Smith (Wash 1914) 217 F 981.
49. The Tillicum (Wash 1914) 217 F 976
50. The Sagamore (Mass 1917) 247 F 743.
51. The Bailey Gatzert (CCA Ore 1910) 179 F 44.
52. The Fannie (Md 1871) 20 L Ed 114.
53. The Mary C (Me 1874) Fed Cas No. 9, 201.
54. The Kaga Maru (Wash 1927) 18 F (2d) 29S.
55. A. H. Bull SS. Co. v. U. S. (NY 1928) 29 F (2d)
56. Klutt v. Philadelphia and Reading Ry. Co. (CCA Penn 1906) 142 F 394.
57. The Vedamore (1905) 137 F 844.
58. The Prim Oskar (1915) 219 F 483.
59. Eastern Dredging Co. v. Winnisimmet 162 F 860.
60. The Campania (La 1927) 21 F (2d) 233.
61. Neally v. the Michigan 63 F 280.
62. The Sagamore (CCA Mass 1917) 247 F 743.
63. The Stifinder (CCA NY 1921) 275 F 271.
64. The Kaga Maru 18 F (2d) 295 (Wash 1927).
65. The Caro (NY 1884) 23 F 734.
66. The Kaiserin Maria Theresa (CCA NY 1906) 149 F 97.
67. The Lake Monroe (CCA 1921) 271 F 474.
68. The Excelsior (NY 1882) 12 F 195.
69. The Tillicum (Wash 1914) 217 F 976.
70. The Scandinavia (NY 1918) 11 F (2d) 542.
71. The Pennsylvania (NY 1878) Fed Cas No. 10, 949; The A. P. Skidmore (NY 1901) 108 F 972.
72. The Virginia Ehrman and the Agnese 24 L Ed 890; The American 102 F 767.
73. The Pocomoke (Va 1906) 150 F 193.
74. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. McCormick Intercoastal SS. Co. (CCA Ore 1927) 20 F (2d) 25.
75. The Nevada v. Quick (NY 1882) 27 L Ed 149.
76. The Luzerne (CCA NY 1912) 197 F 162.
77. The Mary J. Kennedy (CCA 1924) 11 F (2d) 169.
78. The Senator D. C. Chase (CCA NY 1901) 108 F 110.
79. The Deutschland (CCA NY 1905) 137 F 1018.
80. Greenwood v. the William Fletcher and the Grapeshot (NY 1889) 38 F 156.
81. The Cement Rock and the Venture (NY 1876) Fed Cas No. 2,544.
82. The Greystoke Castle (Cal 1912) 199 F 521.
83. The Merrill C. Hart (CCA 1911) 188 F 49; The M. J. Rudolph 292 F 740.
84. The Illinois (1881) 26 L Ed 563.
85. Boston Sand and Gravel Co. v. U. S. (CCA 1925) 7 F (2d) 278.
86. The Johns Hopkins (Mass 1882) 13 F 185.
87. The Oregon (Ore 1895) 39 L Ed 943.
88. Watts v. U. S. (1903) 123 F 105
89. The Ariadne (1872) 13 Wall 475.