The law of the sea

by George L. Canfield; J. Y. Brinton; George W. Dalzell

6. Negligence.—

The tug is liable for negligence only, apart from the terms of any special contract, and then only for such negligence as is the proximate cause of the loss. Negligence is the failure to observe the rules of navigation or to employ the requisite degree of care and skill of competent mariners in like situations. The burden of proving negligence usually rests upon the party charging it but towage sufficiently resembles the contract of carriage as frequently to present cases in which the mere happening of an accident to the tow creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the tug. Thus the pleadings themselves may require the tug to explain the disaster and prove that she was not at fault. This presumption has been applied where the tow is stranded off its proper course in calm weather; or where the tug has grounded the tow while proceeding through a fog at full speed without soundings; or where the tow has been brought into collision with an anchored vessel; or where the accident occurs in a customary channel; or where the tug's steering gear and equipment prove insufficient; or where the tow strikes a known obstruction to navigation.

The case of the Marie Palmer, heretofore cited, is an example of negligence on the part of the tug.

Where, from the negligent operation of a tug, damage is inflicted by a tow, although the tug herself does no damage, a maritime lien for tort arises against the tug and not against the tow. In the Clara Clarita, 23 Wall. 1, the tug engaged and undertook to tow a burning vessel from her berth to a point where it was intended to beach her. While in tow the flames burst through the deck of the burning vessel and severed the hawser by which she was attached to the tug, causing her to drift upon and set fire to the libellant's schooner. Although the tug was far away when the damage was done, the court held her to be in fault because under the circumstances the burning of the hawser ought to have been foreseen and the owners of the damaged schooner were held to be entitled to a maritime lien upon the tug for the damage suffered. It was also held that the tug alone and not the owners of the burned tow should respond in damages. A tug is held not to be the agent of her tow but to occupy the position of an independent contractor. The Court said:

By employing a tug to transport their vessel from one place to another the owners of the tow do not necessarily constitute the master and crew of the tug their agents in performing the services, as they neither appoint the master of the tug nor employ the crew, nor can they displace either one or the other. Their contract for the service, even though it was negotiated with the master of the tug, is, in legal contemplation, made with the owners of the vessel employed; and the master of the tug continues to be the agent of the owners of his own vessel, and they are responsible for his acts in her navigation and management.

On the other hand cases may arise in which the tow alone and not the tug is liable for injury to a third vessel or person. Thus in Albina Ferry Co. v. Imperial and S. G. Reed, 38 Fed. 614, the tug S. G. Reed had in tow the ship Imperial. The ferry boat Veto No. 2 was operated on a wire cable. The Imperial struck the cable, causing the ferry boat to sustain some damage. The tug was employed by the pilot of the Imperial for the purpose of towing the vessel and at the time of the collision was in the control and service of the ship. There was no evidence of any fault on the part of the tug or of any one employed on her. The Court said:

Under these circumstances the steamboat (i.e., tug) and the ship constitute but one vessel and that vessel was the ship. The tug was the mere servant of the tow, and both were under the control and direction of the pilot in charge of the latter. Admitting for a moment that a wrong has been committed, the owners of the Imperial, through their agent, the pilot in charge, are the wrongdoers, and their vessel is alone liable therefor. The owner of the Reed did not participate in the supposed wrong, neither by itself nor by its servants. As well say that the wrong of a person who recklessly rides another down in a public thoroughfare is the wrong of the liveryman from whom he hired the horse.

It is not denied that there may be and have been cases in which both tug and tow are liable for the damage sustained by a collision. But in such case both participate in the management of the vessel, and the negligence of misconduct causing the same.

A case in which both tug and tow were held liable is that of the Civilta and the steam tug Restless, 13 Otto 699. In this case the tow had on board a pilot and the tug was subject to his orders. The libellant's schooner was struck by the hawser, then by the tow. The court said that the tow and tug were, in law, one vessel, and the question was, which one? It was held:

The tug furnished the motive power for herself and the ship. Both vessels were under the general orders of the pilot on the ship, but it is expressly found as a fact that the tug actually received no orders from him. Being on the ship, which was two hundred seventy feet astern of the tug, it is not to be presumed that he was to do more than direct the general course to be taken by the ship in getting to her place of destination. The details of the immediate navigation of the tug, with reference to approaching vessels, must necessarily have been left to a great extent to those on board of her. She was where she would ordinarily see an object ahead before those on the ship could, and having all the motive power of the combined vessels under her own control, she was in a situation to act promptly and do what was required under the circumstances.

*****

We do not entertain a doubt that, situated as the tug was, in the night, so far away from the ship, it was her duty to do what was required by the law of a vessel under steam, to keep herself and the ship out of the way of an approaching vessel, particularly if the pilot of the ship did not assume actual control for the time being of the navigation of the two vessels.

Such being the case, we think it clear both vessels were in fault.

A decree was accordingly given against both the ship and the tug and the damage apportioned one-half to each with the provision that if either of the vessels should prove insufficient to pay its share the residue might be collected from the other.