12. Negligence.—
The pilot is considered as the master for the time being and is answerable for any loss or injury caused by his want of skill. Such negligence may consist in lack of knowledge of the locality or failure to handle the ship with ordinary care. In general he must exercise the ordinary care and skill of his profession and failure so to do will render him liable for negligence. Harbor pilots, for example, are selected for their personal knowledge of the topography through which they take the ship and are deemed to know all its landmarks, channels, courses, constructions and local regulations. All these they must know and remember and observe. They must be expert in their business and each must furnish the same degree of care and skill commonly possessed by others in the same vocation. Thus pilots have been held liable for running a vessel against a pier freshly built into the channel; for failing to appreciate the significance of fixed lights; for towing in a gale; for hugging the shore on a dark night; they are answerable for the safety of the property in their charge and, in the event of damage or loss, will be released from liability only by showing that the causes were beyond their control, as by proving due care and skill or that the cause was an act of God or unavoidable emergency. Where a vessel in his charge is brought into collision and pays, either under a decree or through a reasonable settlement, the damages arising therefrom, the pilot may be held liable over to her owners for what they have been so compelled to pay. But members of pilots' associations are not jointly liable for the negligence of their members even if their earnings go into a common fund.
A case illustrative of the duties and responsibilities of a pilot is that of Wilson v. Charleston Pilots' Association, 57 Fed. 227. The master of the schooner Kate Aitken, which was in Charleston harbor and was about to go to sea in tow of the tug Relief, applied to the Association for a pilot, and Mr. Bringloe was assigned to him. When the pilot boarded the schooner he asked the master whether he preferred the pilot to be on the tug or on the schooner. It was the custom to put the pilot on the tug, unless the master wished otherwise. The master expressed his preference that the pilot should be on the tug. The Court remarked in passing "that if disaster occur because the pilot is on the wrong boat he cannot excuse himself by reason of any preference of the master. He is employed because of his supposed knowledge of all that is necessary to take a vessel to sea." The pilot took his place on the tug and gave direction with regard to the position of the hawser. He took his position on the top of the house and constantly directed the movements of both tug and schooner. Nevertheless the schooner went aground. The Court said:
Is the pilot responsible in damages for this accident? He was in control of the movements of the tug and of the tow. He was charged with the safety of the schooner, and of all that she carried, being bound to use due diligence and care and reasonable skill in the exercise of his important functions. He is answerable if the schooner suffered damage through his default, negligence, or want of skill, while her helm was under his control. He was not an insurer, and is only chargeable for negligence if he fail in due knowledge, care, or skill in avoiding obstructions known or which should have been known to him. If he used his best judgment and skill in avoiding known dangers, he cannot be held liable, although the result may show that his judgment was wrong. "It is settled that if the occupation be one requiring skill, the failure to exert that needful skill, either because it is not possessed or from inattention, is gross negligence." Curtis, J., in the New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469. An eminent text writer, whose name is authority, lays down the principle:
"Every man who offers his services to another, and is employed, assumes to exercise in the employment such skill as he possesses with a reasonable degree of diligence. In all these employments where peculiar skill is requisite, if one offer his services, he is understood as holding himself out to the public as possessing the degree of skill commonly possessed by others in the same employment, and if his pretensions are unfounded he commits a species of fraud on every man who employs him in reliance on his public profession. But no man, whether skilled or unskilled, undertakes that the task he assumes shall be performed successfully and without fault or error. He undertakes for good faith and integrity, but not for infallibility; and he is liable to his employer for negligence, bad faith, or dishonesty, but not for losses consequent on mere error of judgment."
This is the law of this case.
*****
There is a total absence of evidence tending to show want of knowledge, want of care, or want of skill, or bad faith, except the fact of the accident itself. This is not a case in which the fact of the accident is conclusive of the cause. If the grounding arose from the act of the pilot, it was by an error of judgment. The distinction between an error of judgment and negligence is not easily determined. It would seem, however, that if one assuming a responsibility as an expert possesses a knowledge of facts and circumstances connected with the duty he is about to perform, and if he brings to bear all his professional experience and skill, weighs these facts and circumstances, and decides upon a course of action which he faithfully attempts to carry out, the want of success, if due to such course of action, would be attributed to error of judgment, and not to negligence. But if he omits to inform himself as to facts and circumstances, or does not possess the knowledge, experience, or skill which he professes, then, if failure is caused thereby, this would be negligence. But it does not appear that the accident was occasioned by an error of judgment on the part of the pilot.