The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

28. LIABILITY OF VESSELS FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY COL- _ LISION. . When a collision happens by inevita- ble accident, without fault or blame on either side, or when it is impossible to ascertain with any reasonable cer- tainty by whose fault it occurred, the misfortune must be borne by the party on whom it happens to light, and if both vessels. are injured each must bear its own loss. An inevitable acci- dent is an occurrence which the party charged with the collision could not possibly have prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and maritime skill. A collision resulting from the darkness of the night, and without the fault of either party, is an inevitable accident. 'Where the master of a ship takes all such precautions as a man of ordinary prudence and skill, exercising reasonable foresight, would use to avert danger, his owners will not be held responsible because he may have: omitted some precautions which the event suggests' that he might have re- sorted to. When both parties are in fault the rule in courts of admiralty is, that the loss shall be equally divided between them. In a case decided by one of the. courts, the schooner which was sunk by the collision and the steamer that sank her, saw each other at a distance of a mile or a mile and a half. The schooner was unskillfully handled, and - by reason of such unskillfulness the col- lision occurred. The court found, that when the steamer saw the unskillful and dangerous 'way in which ~ the schooner was being navigated, she did not use due and timely caution nor proper measures to prevent the impend- ing danger, and it found as a con- clusion of law, that where a collision is caused by the fault of both vessels, the damages and costs' are to be equal- ly divided. The same rule was applied in a case where a schooner, lying across the end of a pier, left her inshore an- chor hanging with the flukes under water, and a canal boat, having occa- sion to haul up to the pier, caught her stern on the anchor and was damaged so that she sank. And also in a case where a riparian land owner erected a pier out into a river in such a manner that it was an obstruction to naviga- tion, and the vessel ran against it and was damaged, the riparian proprietor was held to be in fault because his pier was an obstruction to navigation, and the vessel was in fault because her pilot was ignorant of the obstruction. Where one vessel only is in fault the rule is, that she shall bear her own loss, A00 ft, TAE Marine REVIEW and: be held liable for the damage sus- tained by the other vessel. In a case before the United States supreme court a small schooner was lying inside the Delaware . breakwater, without any watch on deck. Vessels were continu- ally coming in for shelter from an ap- proaching 'storm, and one of them, without any fault or negligence on her part, collided with the schooner and injured her. It was found that if there had been. a watch on: the deck of the schooner, the collision might have been avoided, and the court decided that the schooner should, bear her own loss, and that the vessel colliding with her was not liable. In another case it was decided that the law imposes upon the vessel having the wind free the obliga- tion of taking proper measure to get out of the way of a vessel that is close hauled, and if she fails to show that she has done this, she will be held' ta still another case the court decided that, liable for all the loss that ensues. where by collision one vessel is left helpless in the track of navigation, and on the following day is injured by a passing vessel, the vessel in fault in the original collision is liable for the cost of repairing the injuries received by the disabled vessel in the second collision. (To be Continued.) COURT OPINIONS. CoLLision.--The large freight steam- er Lake Shore was swinging out from her: dock in Buffalo river. to start on her trip up the lakes as.a steam barge was entering the river, 1,000 ft. distant. The barge, seeing that the steamer was moving, gave her a signal of one whistle to pass port and port, which, not being answered was repeated. The Lake Shore about that time sounded two whistles, but the barge, which was going to starboard, immediately blew an alarm, and repeated her one blast, which was then acceded to by the steamer. At this time the barge was distant, with her helm hard a-port and her engine stopped. . The steamer, however, continued her swing to port, and struck the barge on her port bow. The district court for the western district of New York held that on the evidence the Lake Shore was. solely in fault for failing to maintain an effi- cient lookout or to promptly stop her swing after assenting to the signal of the barge, as she might have done, and that the barge was not in fault, having stopped her engine and being so close to the south pier as she could safely go, \ NEED. OF EMERGENCY LIGHTS. Editor Marine Review:--The en- ~ gineering number of THE Marine RE- view reached me Saturday /th inst.; Sunday I read your. editorial "The Happening of the Unexpected." One of the first items that caught my eye in The Sun of _Monday was: the enclosed clipping on exactly the same.matter. I thought this coincidence might: interest you. : Boor te. Brooklyn, N. Y. AN EVIDENT NEED IN THE SUBWAY. To the Editor of The Sun--Sir: I was in a subway express train that left the bridge about 9 o'clock a. m. When we were below Astor place the train was stopped, and after a few minutes. the lights went out, and we were in total darkness .for some minutes. It seems to me that the Interborough company should be compelled to place lanterns within reach of every guard on _the train, so that they might be used in such cases. Even if there is no apparent danger to passengers, when a train is in utter darkness and remains so for several minutes a slight disturbance of any kind might start a panic; and any one can readily imagine what the result would be. If-any one became suddenly sick or a woman fainted there would be nothing to do but to strike matches until a lantern could be got either from the front or the back of the train. I think it is highly important that this matter should be agitated and the Interborough company compelled in some way to make proper provision for the passengers, so far as lights are concerned, in case the electric lights go out. GrorcEe S, BRown, New York, April 6. The Western Transit Co., of Buffalo, owner of the steamer Troy, which col- lided with the Interstate bridge at Du- luth last summer, has won 'the pre- liminary legal skirmish with the Great Northern road. The case came up for hearing before Judge Sanborn in the United States district court at Madi- son, Wis, The attorney for the steam- ship company argued that an admiralty court had no jurisdiction to try a case of a vessel colliding with a fixed ob- ject. Judge Sanborn held for the steamship company and the owners of the Interstate bridge have appealed to the United States supreme court. H. R. Spencer, of Duluth, represented the Western 'Transit. Co,,.and.C. &: Krom. er, of Chicago, the Great Northern road. The steamer W. J. Carter has been sold by John Hall, the Buffalo vegsel agent, to the Churchill Lumber Com of Alpena, Mich.