Where one vessel, clearly to be guilty of a fault adequate in itself to have caused a collision, seeks to impugn the oth er vessel, there is a presumption in favor of the latter, which can only be rebutted hY clear proof of, a contributing fault, and this principle is peculiarly applicable to a vessel at anchor, complying with regulations Con cerning lights and receiving injuries, through the fault of a steamer in motion ; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943. If a cargo be damaged by col lision between two vessels, the owner may pursue both vessels or either, or the own ers or both, or either ; and in case he ,pro ceeds against one only, and both are held in fault, he may recover his entire damages of the one sued ; In re Eastern Dredging Co., 182 Fed. 179 ; The Beaconsfield, 158 U. S. 303, 15 Sup. Ct. 860, 39 L. Ed. 993.
These four classes of cases are noted in 2 Dods. 85, by Lord Stowell.
Full compensation is, in general, to be made in such cases for the loss and damage which the prosecuting party has sustained by the fault of the party proceeded against: 2 W. Rob. 279 ; including all damages which are fairly attributable exclusively to the act of the original wrong-doer, or which may be said to be the direct consequence of his wrongful act ; 3 W. Rob. 7, 282 ; 11 M. & W. 228 ; 1 Swab. 200 ; The Narragan sett, 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 ; The Catharine, 17 How. (IT. S.) 170, 15 L. Ed. 233 ; The Anna W., 201 Fed. 58, 119 C. C. A. 396.
As to limited liability of owners, see SHIP.
For the prevention of collisions, certain rules have been adopted (see RULES) which are binding upon vessels ap proaching each other from the time the necessity for precaution begins, and con tinue to be applicable, as the vessels ad vance, so long as the means and opportu nity to avoid the danger remain ; New York & L. IT. S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Rumball, 21 How. 372, 16 L. Ed. 144. But, whatever may be the rules of navigation in force at the place of collision, it is apparent that they must sometimes yield to extraordinary cir cumstances, and cannot be regarded as bind ing in all cases. Thus, if a vessel neces sarily goes so near a rock, or the land, that by following the ordinary rules she would inevitably go upon the rock, or get on shore or aground, no rule should prevail over the preservation of property and life; 1 W. Rob. 478, 485 ; 4 J. B. Moore 314; • The Maggie J. Smith, 123 U. S. 349, 8 Sup. Ct. 159, 31 L. Ed. 175 ; Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. -874. 14 Sup. Ct. 264. 37, L. Ed. 1218 ; but obe dience to the rules is not a fault, even if a different course would have prevented a col lision, and the necessity must clear and the emergency sudden and alarming before an act of disobedience can be excused ; Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674, 14 Sup. Ct.
264, 37 L. Ed. 1218. No vessel should un necessarily incur the probability of a col lision by 'a pertinacious adherence to the rule of navigation ; 1 W. Rob. 471. 478 ; Hawkins v. Steamboat Co., 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 452; and if it was clearly in the power of one of the vessels which came into collision to have avoided all danger by giving way, she will be hWd bound to do so, notwith standing the rule of navigation ; 6 Thornt. Adm. 600, 607 ; Lane v. The A. Denike, 3 Cliff. 117, Fed. Cas. No. 8,045.
All navigation rules pertinent to a given situation are to be construed together, and while each of two approaching vessels has the right to expect the other to navigate in accordance with the rules or a passing agreement, when it becomes evident that either is not doing so, it is the duty of the other to navigate accordingly and take such measures as may seem necessary to avoid a collision ; U. S. v. Erie R. Co., 172 Fed. 50, 96 C. C. A. 538a But a vessel is not requir ed to depart from the rule when she can not do so without danger ; Biggs v. Barry, 2 Curt. C. C. 363, Fed. Cas. No. 1,402; Crock ett v. The Isaac Newton, 18 How. 581, 15 L. Ed. 492.
There must be a lookout properly Oa Honed and kept; and under circumstances of special danger, two ; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943; and the absence of such a lookout is prima facie evidence of negligence ; St. John v. Paine, 10 How. (U. S.) 557, 13 L. Ed. 537; Whitridge v. Dill, 23 How. (U. S.) 448, 16 L. Ed. 581; The Scioto, Daveis, 359, Fed. Cas. No. 12,508 ; The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. 167, 1 C. C. A. 219 ; The Nellie Clark, 50 Fed. 585. The rule requiring a lookout ad mits of no exception on account of size in favor of any craft capable of committing injury; The Marion, 56 Fed. 27L The ab sence of a lookout is not material where the presence of one would not have availed to prevent a collision; The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S. 371, 12 Sup. Ct. 711, 36 L. Ed. 469. A sailing vessel is entitled' to assume that a steam vessel approaching her is being nav igated with a proper lookout ; The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. 167, 1 C. C. A. 219. By the International Code, rule 8, lights also must be kept ; the rule was formerly otherwise in regard to vessels on the high seas; 2 W. Rob. 4 ; The Delaware v. The Osprey, 2 Wall. Jr. 268, Fed. Cas. No. 3,763. See NAVIGATION RULES ; The Genesee Chief v.