Exceptions are admitted with reluctance and only where adherence to the rules must necessarily result in a collision ; The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240, 20 Sup. Ct. 595, 44 L. Ed. 751.
The maritime law, however, requires that in collision cases every violation of a rule of navigation, and every other act or omis sion alleged to be a fault, shall be considered in connection with all the attendiug cir cumstances; and when by inevitable acci dent, or the fault of one of two colliding vessels, a vessel free from fault is suddenly brought into such circumstances of imminent danger as probably to render the deliberate or proper exercise of the judgment and skill of an experienced seaman impossible, an er ror of judgment, or other mistake, is not regarded as a legal fault ; The Northern Indiana, 3 Blatch. 92, Fed. Cas. No. 10,320; The Havana, 54 Fed. 411; The Maggie J. Smith, 123 U. S. 349, 8 Sup. Ct. 159, 31 L. Ed. 175.
The proper and continual exhibition of the bright and colored lights which these rules and regulations prescribe, and their careful observance by the officer of the deck and the lookout of every vessel, con stitute the very foundation of the system of navigation established by such rules and regulations. The exhibition of such lights, and the strict compliance with the rules in respect to stationing and keeping a compe tent and careful person in the proper place and devoted to the discharge of the duties of a lookout, are of the utmost importance.
The stringent requirements of our mari time courts in respect to lookouts may be learned by consulting the following authori ties; St. John v. Paine, 10 How. (U. S.) 585, 13 L. Ed. 537; The Northern Indiana, 3 Blatch. 92, Fed. Cas. No. 10,320; The Clara, 55 Fed. 1021, 5 C. C. A. 390; The Charles H. Senif, 53 Fed. 669; The John T. Pratt, 60 Fed. 1022. This rule admits of no exception on account of size, in favor of any craft capable of committing injuries ; The Marion, 56 Fed. 271. A sailing-vessel is en titled to assume that a steam-vessel, ap proaching her, is being navigated with a proper lookout and with reasonable atten tion to the obligations laid upon her ; The Coe F. Young, 49 Fed. 167, 1 C. C. A. 219, 1 U. S. App. 11. The absence of a lookout is not material where the presence of one would not have availed to prevent a colli sion ; The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S. 371, 12
Sup. Ct. 711, 36 L. Ed. 469.
The neglect to carry or display the lightd prescribed by these rules and regulations will always be held, prima facie, a fault, in a collision case; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. (U. S.) 441, 465, 12 L. Ed. 226; 3 W. Rob. 191; Swab. 120, 245, 253, 519; 1 Lush. 382; The Ann Caroline, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 538, 17 L. Ed. 833. And, upon the same principles, the neglect, in a fog, to use the prescribed fog-signals will also be considered, prima facie, a fault ; Desty, Adm. § 360. See Foo.
It will be observed that the duty of slack ening speed, in all cases when risk of colli sion is involved, is absolutely and imperative ly imposed upon every steam-vessel, by these regulations, and that they require that every steam-vessel shall stop and reverse her en gine when necessary to avoid a collision.
The duty of slackening speed in order to avoid a collision had been frequently de clared by the maritime courts before the adoption of these regulations ; 3 Hagg. Adm. 414 ; The Northern Indiana, 3 Blatch. 92, Fed. Cas. No. 10,320; 2 W. Rob. 1; 3 id. 95, 270, 377; St. John v. Paine, 10 How. (U. S.) 557, 13 L. Ed. 537; but there was no inflexi ble rule requiring a steamer to slacken speed in all cases when there was risk of collision ; and the neglect to do it was held to be a fault only in those cases where its necessity was shown by the proofs. This left the ques tion open to be determined by the courts in each particular case, and perhaps upon vague and unreliable estimates of time and distance and bearings, or upon conflicting and unsatisfactory testimony ; but the legis lature, in view of the great power and speed of the steamers now in general use, and the very disastrous consequences of a collision of such vessels when running at their ordi nary speed, has wisely made the duty im perative; The Illinois, 5 Blatch. 256, Fed. Cas. No. 7,002. Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How. (U. S.) 586, 13 L. Ed. 551; The Free State, 91 U. S. 200, 23 L. Ed. 299; The State of California, 49 Fed. 172, 1 C. C. A. 224, 7 U. S. App. 20. See COLIISION; MARITIME LAW.