COLLISION. The act of ships or vessels striking together, or of one vessel running against or foul of another.
It may happen without fault, no blame being imputable to those in charge of either vessel. In such case, in the English, Ameri can, and French courts, each party must bear his own loss; Pardessus, Droit Comm. p. 4, t. 2, c. 2, § 4; General Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. (U. S,) 352, 14 L. Ed. 452 ; 1 Pars. Sh. & Adm. 525.
A collision by inevitable accident is when a collision is caused exclusively by natural causes, without any fault on the part of the owners or those in charge ; The Sea Gull, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 169, 23 L. Ed. 90; Killam v. Eri, 3 Cliff. 456, Fed. Cas. No. 7,765; Samp son v. U. S., 12 Ct. Cl. 480. It must appear that neither vessel was in fault ; Sterling v. The Jennie Cushman, 3 Cliff. 636, Fed. Cas. No. 13,375. Where the captain and crew, ex cept the second mate, were taken sick, and a collision occurred, through the absence of a lookout, it was held to be inevitable accident; The Southern Home, 8 Reporter 389, Fed. Cas. No. 13,187. See also The F. W. Gifford, 7 Biss. 249, Fed. Cas. No. 5,166.
It may happen by mutual fault, that is, by the misconduct, fault, or negligence of those in charge of both vessels ; The C. R. Stone, 49 Fed. 475 ; The Brinton, 50 Fed. 581; The T. B. Van Houten, 50 Fed. 590; The Riversdale, 53 Fed. 286 ; The Allen Green, 60 Fed. 459, 9 C. C. A. 73. In such case, neither party has relief at common law ; 3 Kent 231; 3 C. & P. 528 ; Barnes v. Cole, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 188 ; Hartfield v. Roper, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 615, 34 Am. Dec. 273; Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 592, 41 Am. Dec. 771; Parker v. Adams, 12 Metc. (Mass.) 415, 46 Am. Dec. 694 (though now otherwise in England by 'the Judicature Act 1873) ; but the maritime courts aggregate the damages to both vessels and their cargoes, and then divide the same equally between the two ves sels; 3 Kent 232 ; The Teutonia, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 84, 23 L. Ed. 44 ; The Clara, 49 Fed. 765; The State of California, 49 Fed. 172, 1 C. C. A. 224 ; The Bolivia, 49 Fed. 169, 1 C. C. A. 221; Fristad v. The Premier, 51 Fed. 766 ; The Marion, 56 Fed. 271; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97, 7 Sup. Ct. 1158, 30 L. Ed. 1095. See 1 Swab. 60. Where two tugs and two scows in tow by one of them are all in fault, each is liable for an equal share of the damages, even though more than one be by the same person ; The Eugene F. Moran, 212 U.
S. 466, 29 Sup. Ct. 339, 53 L. Ed. 600. Where the collision is by intentional wrong of both parties, the libel will be dismissed ; The R. L. Maybey, 4 Blatch. 88, Fed. Cas. No. 11, 870.
It may happen by inscrutable fault, that is, by the fault of those in charge of one or both vessels and yet under such circum stances that It Is impossible to determine who is in fault. In such case the Ameri can courts of admiralty and the European maritime courts formerly adopted the rule of an equal division of the aggregate dam age ; The Comet, 1 Abb. U. S. 451, Fed. Cas. No. 3,050 ; The Scioto, 2 Ware (Daveis 365) 360, Fed. Cas. No 12,508; Flanders, Mar, Law, 296. The English courts have refused a remedy in admiralty ; 2 Hagg. Adm. 145 6 Thornt. 240 ; and see The Kallisto, 2 Hugh. 128, `Fed. Cas. No. 7,600 ; but it has now been decided by a vast preponderance of authority that there can be no recovery or partial re covery unless fault be affirmatively shown ; The Jumna, 149 Fed. 173, 79 C. C. A. 119, following The Clara, 102 U. S. 200, 26 L. Ed. 145 ; The Sunnyside, 91 U. S. 208, 23 L. Ed. 302.
It may happen by the fault of those be longing to one of the colliding vessels, with out any fault being imputable to the other vessel. In such case the owners of the vessel iu fault must bear the damage which their own vessel has sustained, and are liable as well as their master to a claim for compen sation from the owners of the other vessel for the damage done to her ; 1 Swab. 23, 173, 200, 211; 3 W. Rob. 283; The Narragansett, 1 Blatchf. 211, Fed. Cas. No. 10,017; Vantine v. The Lake, 2 Wall. Jr. 52, Fed. Cas. No: 16,878 ; Smith v. Condry, 1 How. (U. S.) 28, 11 L. Ed. 35 ; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. (U. S.) 101, 14 L. Ed. 68; although wilfully committed by the master ; Ralston v. State Rights, Crabbe 22, Fed. Cas. No. 11,540; Dusar v. Murgatroyd, 1 Wash. C. C. 13, Cas. No. 4,199; Dias v. The Revenge, 1 Wash. C. C. 262, Fed. Cas. No. 3,877. But see 1 W. Rob. 399 ; 2 id. 502 ; Wright v. Wilcox, Wend. (N. Y.) 343, 32 Am. Dec. 507.