6. There must be a lookout properly sta tioned and kept; and the absence of such a lookout is prim& facie evidence of negligence. 10 How. 657 ; 12 id. 443 ; 18 id. 584 ; M. id. 548; 23 id. 448; Day. Dist. Ct. 359; 16 Bost. Law Rep. 433 ; 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 239. Lights must be kept, in some cases; though the rule was and is otherwise by general maritime law in regard to vessels on the high seas. 2 W. Rob. Adm. 4; 3 id. 49; 2 Wall. Jr. 268. See NAVIGATION RULES; 12 How. 443 ; 17 id. 170 ; 18 id. 223, 581; 19 id. 56, 48, 201 ; 21 id. 1, 184, 372, 548 ; 22 id. 48, 461 ; 23 id. 287 ; Day. Dist. Ct. 359 ; 1 Blatchf. C. C. 236, 370 ; Stu. Adm. Low. C. 222, 242; 21 Pick. Mass. 254; 6 Whart. Penn. 324 ; 11 Bost. Law Rep. 80 ; 16 id. 433 ; 19 id. 379 ; 6 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 374; 1 Thornt. Adm. 592 ; 2 id. 101 ; 4 id. 97, 161; 6 id. 176 ; 7 id. 507 ; 2 W. Rob. Adm. 377 ; 3 id. 7, 49, 190 ; 1 Swab. Adm. 20, 233.
1. The injury to an insured vessel occa sioned by a collision is a loss within the ordinary policy of insurance, 4 Ad. &, E. 420 ; 6 Nev. & M. 713 ; 14 Pet. 99; 14 How. 352 ; 8 Cush. Mass. 477 ; but when the col lision is occasioned• by the fault of the in sured vessel, or the fault of both vessels, the insurer is not ordinarily liable for the amount of the injury done to the other vessel which may be decreed against the vessel insured, 4 Ad. & E. 420: 7 Ellis & B. 172; 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 54 ; 11 N. Y. 9 ; 14 How. 352, and cases cited ; but some policies now provide that the insurer shall be liable for such a loss. 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 54 ; 7 Ellis & B. 172.
When the collision was without fault on either side, and occurred in a foreign country, where, in accordance with the local law, the damages wore equally divided between the colliding vessels, the amount of the decree again • st the insured vessel for its share of the damages suffered by the other vessel was held recoverable under the ordinary policy. 14 Pet. 99.
The fact that the libellants in a collision case had received satisfaction from the in surers for the vessel destroyed, furnishes no ground of defence for the respondent. 17 How. 152.
S. Improper speed on the part of a steamer in a dark night, during thick weather, or in the crowded thoroughfares of.commerce, will render such vessel liable for the damages oc casioned by a collision ; and it is no excuse for such dangerous speed that the steamer car ries the mail and is under contract to convey it at a greater average speed than that com plained. of. 16 Bost. Law Rep. 433 ; 5 N. Y.
Leg. Ohs. 293 ; 11 id. 297 ; 3 Hagg. Adm. 414; 2 W. Rob. Adm. 2, 205 ; 18 How. 89, 223 ; 19 id. 108 ; 21 id. 1.
When a collision is occasioned solely by the error or unskilfulness of a pilot in charge of a vessel under the provisions of a law compelling the master to take such pilot and commit to him the management of his vessel, the pilot is solely responsible for the damage, and nei ther the master, his vessel, nor her owner is responsible. But the burden of proof is on the vessel to show that the collision is wholly attributable to the fault of the pilot. 1 How. 28; 1 Maule & S. 77 ;1_ W. Rob. Adm. 131, 171; 1 Swab. Adm. 69, 101, 127, 193.
9. A cause of collision, or collision and damage, as it is technically called, is a suit in rem in the admiralty.
In the United States courts it is commenced by the filing of a libel and the arrest of the vessel to the mismanagement or fault of which the injury is imputed. In the English admiralty the suit is commenced by the. arrest of the vessel and the filing of a petition. In England, the judge is usu ally assisted at the hearing of the cause by two of the Masters or Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, or other experienced shipmasters, whose opinions upon all questions of professional skill in volved in the issue are usually adopted by the court. 1 W. Rob. Adm. 471; 2 id. 225; 2 Chitty, Genl. Pract. 514.
In the American courts of admiralty, the judge usually decides without the aid or advice of expe perienced shipmasters acting as assessors or ad visers of the court; hut the evidence of such ship masters, aeezperte, is sometimes received in reference to questions of professional skill or nautical usage. Such evidence is not, however, admissible to esta blish a usage in direct violation of those general rules of navigation which have been sanctioned and established by repeated decisions. 2 Curt. C. C. 141, US.
10. When a party sets up circumstances as the basis of exceptions to the general rules • of navigation, he is held to strict proof, 1 W. Rob. Adm. 157, 182, 478; 6 Thornt. Adm. 607 ; 5 id. 170 ; 3 Hagg. Adm. 321; and courts of admiralty lean against such excep tions. 11 N. Y. Leg. Ohs. 353, 355. The admissions of a master of one of the colliding vessels subsequently to the collision are ad missible in evidence, 5 Eng. L. & Eq. 556 ; and the masters and crew are admissible as witnesses. 2 Dods. Adm. 83 ; 2 Hagg. Adm. 145 ; 3 id. 321, 325 ; 1 Conkling, Adm. 384.