Fitzhugh, 12 How. (U. S.) 443, 13 L. Ed. 1058; Haney v. Packet Co.. 23 How. (U. S.) 287, 16 L. Ed. 562 ; The Emily, 1 Blatebf. 236, Fed. Cas. No. 4,452 ; The Santa Claus, 1 Blatchf. 370, Fed. Cas. No. 12,326 ; Carsley v. White, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 254, 32 Am. Dec. 259 ; Simpson v. Hand, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 324, 36 Am. Dec. 231; The Havilah, 50 Fed. 331. 1 C. C. A. 519; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943. Stu. Adm. Low. C. 222, 242 ; 1 Thornt. Adm. 592; 6 id. 176 ; 7 id. 507; 2 W. Rob. 377; 3 id. 7, 49, 190; 1 Swab. 20, 233.
The injury to an insured vessel occasioned by a collision is a loss within the ordinary policy of insurance ; 4 Ad. & E. 420; 6 N. 8t M. 713 ; Peters v. Ins. Co., 14 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 10 L. Ed. 371; General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. (U. S.) 352, 14 L. Ed. 452 ; Nelson v. Ins. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 477, 54 Am. Dec. 776; but when the collision is occasioned by the fault of the insured vessel, or the fault of both vessels, the in surer 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 E. & B. 172 ; 40 E. L Eq. 54 ; Mathews v. Ins. Co., 11 N. Y. 9; General. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. (U. S.) 352, 14 L. Ed. 452, and cases cited: but some policies now provide that the surer shall be liable for such a loss 40 E. L. & Eq. 54 ; 7 E. & B. 172.
Damage caused to one vessel by striking upon another vessel's anchor, is within a policy of marine insurance providing against collisions between vessels ; [1901] 2 K. B. 792.
See Matsunami, Collisions between War ships and Merchant Vessels.
When the collision was without fault on either side, and occurred in a foreign coun try, where, in accordance with the local law, the damages were equally divided be tween the colliding vessels, the amount of the decree against the insured vessel for its share of the damages suffered by the other vessel was held recoverable under the ordinary policy ; Peters v. Ins. Co., 14 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 10 L.' Ed. 371.
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 The Monticello v. Mollison, 17 How. (U. S.) 152, 15 L. Ed. 68.
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 dam ages occasioned by a collision; and it is no excuse for such dangerous speed that the steamer carries the mail and is under con tract to convey it at a greater average speed than that complained of ; 3 Flagg. Adm.
414; McCready v. Goldsmith, 18 How. (U. S.) 89, 15 L. Ed. 288 ; The New York v. Rea, 18 How. (U. S.) 223, 15 L. Ed. 359; Sampson v. United States, 12 Ct. Cis. (U. S.) 480; The Manistee, 7 Biss. 35, Fed. Cas. No. 9,028 ; The Majestic, 48 Fed. 730, 1 C. C. A. 78; Fabre v. Steamship Co., 53 Fed. 288, 3 C. C. A. 534; The Bolivia, 49 Fed. 169, 1 C. C. A. 221; The Laurence, 54 Fed. 542, 4 C. C. A. 501; The Fulda, 52 Fed. 400; The Trave, 55 Fed. 117 ; The Britannia, 153 U. S. 130, 14 Sup. Ct. 795, 38 L. Ed. 660; The Nacoochee, 137 U. S..330, 11 Sup. Ct. 122, 34 L. Ed. 687.
As between a steamer and a sailing ves sel, the former must keep out of the way of the latter ; The Java, 14 Blatch. 524, Fed. Cas. No. 7,233 ; The Free State, 91 U. S. 200, 23 L. Ed. 299; The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S. 371. 12 Sup. Ct. 711, 36 L. Ed. 469; The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330, 11 Sup. Ct. 122, 34 L. Ed. 687; The Havana, 54 Fed. 411! The Robert Holland, 59 Fed. 200; as be tween a vessel In motion and one .at anchor, with proper lights, the former is ordinarily liable for a collision ; The Lady Franklin, 2 Low. 220, Fed. Cas. No. 7,984; The J. W. Everman, 2 Hugh. 17, Fed. Cas. No. 7,591. Where a vessel is moored for the night ac cording to custom along a well-known dock and not projecting beyond the wharf, if run into by a steamer in the fog, she is not at fault because she had no light set and sounded no gongs ; The Express, 48 Fed. 323. A vessel at anchor in a fairway must take precautions commensurate with the danger she presents to shipping; The Eur ope, 175•Fed. 596.
A sailing vessel beating in the vicinity of a steam vessel is not obliged to run out her tack, provided her going about is not cal culated to mislead or embarrass the steam vessel; The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. 167, 1 C. C. A. 219.
An inexperienced oarsman is guilty of neg ligence in attempting to cross the path of a steamboat but a short distance in front of it ; Sekerak v. Jutte, 153 Pa. 117, 25 Atl. 994. As to collisions due to the fault of a pilot, see PILOTAGE.