(Lat. collision), in a general sense, is the act of any two or more bodies coming forcibly together. (See Mechanics.)

Collision (Fr. abordage), in Commercial Navigation, signifies the shock of two ships coming into sudden and violent contact at sea, by which one or both may be more or less injured.

From the great increase of navigation, the risk of accidents by collision at sea has been proportionally augmented; and it is therefore of importance to be able satisfactorily to determine by whom the loss should, in such cases, be borne. This, however, is by no means an easy matter; and the laws of different countries, and the opinions of the ablest jurists, differ widely with respect to it.

Masters of ships are placed in a situation of great trust and responsibility; and they are bound to do everything in their power to insure the safety of the ships, crews, and passengers under their command. "If any injury or loss happen to the ship or cargo by reason of the negligence or misconduct of the master, he is personally responsible for it; and although the merchant may elect to sue the owners, they will have a remedy against him to make good the damages which they may be compelled to pay" —(Abbott—Lord Tenterden—on The Law of Shipping, cap. 4, § 1, Shee's ed.) As a branch of this general duty, masters are bound to keep a proper watch at sea, especially in channels much frequented by shipping, that they may avoid coming into collision with other vessels.

The obligation to provide against the risk of collision has not, however, been left to depend on general principles, but has been made in most maritime states the subject of regulation. In 1840 the Trinity-house issued a rule of navigation for the guidance and government of masters and others in charge of sailing and steam vessels passing each other on opposite courses—(see MacCulloch's Commercial Dict. Supp., art. Collision); and though not itself a law, masters not complying with the regulations therein laid down have been held to be guilty of unseamanlike conduct, and their owners or themselves have been made responsible for the consequences. But it is at the same time to be borne in mind, that no rule of this sort is to be regarded as inflexible; and that no master will be warranted in abiding by it when by doing so he must plainly incur danger. A may be in his proper course; but if by pursuing it he will run a great risk of coming into collision with B, who is upon a wrong course, he is bound to alter his course so as to avoid the collision. The fact of one master being ignorant, careless, or in fault, is no reason why another should not use every means in his power to provide for the safety of his ship, and consequently of the lives and property entrusted to his care.

The act 14th and 15th Vict. cap. 79, regulating the navigation of steam-vessels, &c., has the following clauses in regard to the avoidance of collisions:

Rules to be observed by vessels passing each other.—“Whenever any vessel proceeding in one direction meets a vessel proceeding in another direction, and the master or other person having charge of either such vessel perceives that if both vessels continue their respective courses they will pass so near as to involve any risk of a collision, he shall put the helm of his vessel to port, so as to pass on the port side of the other vessel, due regard being had to the tide, and to the position of each vessel, with respect to the dangers of the channel, and, as regards sailing vessels, to the keeping each vessel under command; and the master of any steam-vessel navigating any river or narrow channel shall keep as far as is practicable to that side of the fairway or mid-channel thereof which lies on the starboard side of such vessel; and if the master or other person having charge of any steam-vessel neglect to observe these regulations, or either of them, he shall, for every such offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50.”—§ 27.

Owners not entitled to Compensation in certain cases of Collision, but Master to be liable to Penalty.—“If in any case of a collision between two or more vessels, it appear that such collision was occasioned by the non-observance either of the foregoing rules with respect to the passing of steamers or of the rules to be made by the lord high admiral, or the commissioners for executing the office of lord high admiral, with respect to the exhibition of lights; the owner of the vessel by which any such rule has been infringed shall not be entitled to recover any recompense whatsoever for any damage sustained by such vessel in such collision, unless it appears to the court before which the case is tried, that the circumstances of the case were such as to justify a departure from the rule; and in case any damage to person or property be sustained in consequence of the non-observance of any of the said rules, the same shall in all courts of justice be deemed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have been occasioned by the wilful default of the master or other person having the charge of such vessel; and such master or other person shall, unless it appears to the court before which the case is tried, that the circumstances of the case were such as to justify a departure from the rule, be subject in all proceedings, whether civil or criminal, to the legal consequences of such default.”—§ 28.

The conditions under which cases of collision take place may differ extremely. Thus, 1st, it may be merely accidental, or be occasioned by circumstances beyond the power of control, as by the violence of the wind or waves dashing or impelling the ships together, without blame being im-

---

1 These Rules were Issued on the 1st of May 1852. See Com. Dictionary. Collision. putable to either party; or, 2d, it may be owing to the culpable negligence or misconduct of one party; or, 3d, both parties may be to blame. In adjudicating upon losses growing out of collisions that have taken place under such different circumstances, the conclusions must also be very different.

With respect to the first class of cases, there is little apparent difficulty: wherever a loss is occasioned by a storm, a fog, or other accidental circumstance, without any blame being ascribable to either party, it would appear to be equitable that it should be borne by the sufferer. And this principle having been embodied in the Roman law, was subsequently ingrained into that of England. (Marshall on Insurance, cap. 12, § 2.) But other authorities, to whom the greatest deference is due, contend that the loss arising from accidental collisions, however it may affect the parties, should be equally divided between them; and this, in fact, is the rule followed in most maritime states.

Thus it is laid down in the famous French ordonnance of 1681 (lib. iii., tit. xii., art. 10), that "En cas d'abordage de vaisseaux, le dommage sera payé également par les navires qui l'auront fait et souffrir, soit en route, en rade, ou au port." This also is the rule sanctioned by the law of England in cases of collision where both parties are to blame, but where the blame cannot be discriminated. Those cases in which the blame is clearly ascribable to either party present no difficulty.

The leading doctrines of the law of England with regard to collisions have been clearly and succinctly stated by Lord Stowell. "In the first place," says his lordship, "a collision may happen without blame being imputable to either party, as when the loss is occasioned by a storm or any other vis major. In that case the misfortune must be borne by the party on whom it happens to light; the other not being responsible to him in any degree. Secondly, a misfortune of this kind may arise where both parties are to blame, where there has been a want of due diligence or of skill on both sides; in such a case the rule of law is, that the loss must be apportioned between them, as having been occasioned by the fault of both of them. Thirdly, it may happen by the misconduct of the suffering party only; and then the rule is, that the sufferer must bear his own burden. Lastly, it may have been the fault of the ship which ran the other down, and in this case the innocent party would be entitled to an entire compensation from the other."

—(Dodson's Admiralty Reports, 83.)

We may add, that the rule of the equal division of the damage where both vessels are to blame has been since Lord Stowell's time fully recognised, and finally established by a decision of the House of Lords on an appeal from Scotland. Various authorities have spoken disparagingly of the rule now referred to, and have called it a judicium rusticorum. And it would no doubt be very desirable in cases of collision where both parties are to blame, that the neglect or culpability of each should be accurately determined, and the damages assessed accordingly. But from the obscurity in which such cases are usually involved, and the conflicting testimony brought forward by the different parties, the difficulties in the way of this being done are usually quite insuperable. And it is better to adopt a rule which, though less equitable perhaps in principle, is fairer in its application than any other that could be adopted. It is followed, as the Dutch jurist says, propter bonum publicum et culpa praebenda difficulatem. Of its expediency, indeed, there can be no reasonable doubt. The observations of Valin in this respect are quite conclusive—"C'étoit," says this great authority, "le moyen le plus propre à rendre les capitaines ou maîtres des navires extrêmement attentifs à éviter tout abordage, surtout ceux des bâtiments faibles et plus susceptibles d'être incombattables par le moindre choc en leur rendant toujours présent la crainte de supporter la moitié du dommage qu'ils en pourroient recevoir. Et si l'on dit qu'il aurait été plus simple et plus court de laisser pour le compte particulier de chacun le dommage qu'il aurait reçu, comme provenant d'un cas fortuit; la réponse est qu'alors les capitaines de gros navires n'auraient plus craint de heurter les bâtiments d'une beaucoup moindre force que les leurs; rien donc de plus juste que la contribution par moitié."—(Commentaire sur l'Ordonnance de 1681, ii. 179. ed. 1776.)

In apportioning the damage in cases where both parties have been in fault, the question occurs, whether the damage done to the cargo shall be taken into account or left out in the estimate on which the apportionment is to be made. This knotty point has been differently decided in different countries. But the stat. 53 Geo. III., cap. 159, which limits the liability of owners to the value of the ship and freight, applies to cases of damage by collision. (For further observations on this curious and important subject in addition to Valin and the other authorities already referred to, the reader may consult the chapter on Collision in Maude and Pollock's Treatise on the Law of Merchant Shipping.)

Number of Collisions at Sea.—A statement has been prepared by Mr John A. Rucker, underwriter, giving a classification of the number of collisions at sea reported in Lloyd's lists during the five years from 1845 to 1849 inclusive. It thence appears that the annual numbers were 603, 564, 699, 633, and 565; so that there has been a decrease in 1849, notwithstanding the increased traffic of that year. The total collisions of the five years amount to 3064. Of these 279 were cases in which a vessel was sunk, run down, or abandoned; 189 were cases in which there was serious damage; 686 in which the damage, although less, was still considerable; and 1910 in which it was only slight. The average of steamers in contact with steamers during each year is about 11; of steamers in contact with sailing vessels about 37; of sailing vessels in contact with steamers 86; and of sailing vessels in contact with sailing vessels 533.

In 1852, 33 ships were totally lost by collisions, and 24 were so much injured as to be obliged to discharge their cargoes.

Liability of Insurers in cases of Collision.—Where the collision is purely fortuitous, without blame being ascribable to either party, it is obviously a loss by the perils of the sea, and must, as such, be made good by the underwriters.

The underwriters are also liable when the loss has been entirely occasioned by the misconduct of the master and crew of the defendant's ship; but when the damage has been occasioned by the misconduct or negligence of the master and crew of the pursuer's ship, such misconduct would perhaps be held to amount to barratry, and the loss would be recoverable under that head. There has, however, been no direct decision in our courts on this curious point. But if the misconduct or negligence in question were not held barratrous, it would be of so gross a character as to exempt the underwriters from their liability.

In cases where the damage is equally apportioned between the colliding ships, authorities differ as to whether the loss should be regarded as resulting from a peril of the sea. In this country the negative doctrine has been held, and, as we think, on entirely satisfactory grounds. The misconduct or incapacity of masters and crews can with no propriety be called a peril of the sea. It may occur on the sea, but is certainly not occasioned by it. (See for further details on this point, Arnould's learned Treatise on Marine Insurance, ii. 804, and the authorities there referred to.) (J. H. M.)