Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/640

Rh this is not a place particularly provided for by act of Parliament or charter as regards the appointment of pilots; ships passing through the limits of any pilotage district in their voyages from one port to another port, and not being bound to any port or place ithm such limits or anchoring therein, but not including ships loading or discharging at any place situate within the district, or at any place situate above the district on the same river or its tributaries Ships whose masters or mates are owners or part owners of them, and livmg at Dover, Deal, or the Isle of Thanet, may be piloted by them from any of these places up and do n the Thames or Medway, or into or out of any place or port thi11 the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports The following ships in the London district and Trimty outport districts are also exempt when not carrying passengers, namely: Ships employed m the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, ships of not more than 6o tons burden, ships trading to or from any port in Great Britain within the above districts to or from the port of Brest m France, and any port in Europe (which does not include the United Kingdom) north and east of Brest, or to the Channel Islands or Isle of Man; and ships navigating within the limits of the port to which they belong The port to or from h1ch the ship must be “ trading ” in this provision has been interpreted by the decisions to mean the port where the cargo is substantially discharged or loaded respectively; and the word “coaster ” similarly has been held to apply only to a vessel carrying to one port of the United Kingdom a cargo which has been taken in at another. Every ship carrying passengers betw een any place in the British Islands and any other place so situate must carry a compulsory pilot, unless her master or mate have a pilotage certificate. The effect in law of the ship (British or foreign) being in charge of a compulsory pilot under the act is that her owner and master are not answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of such ship mthm any district where the employment of such pilot is compulsory by law. In order to take advantage of this privilege, the shipow ner must show (1) that a properly qualified pilot was acting in charge of the ship; there are, however, various kinds of qualified pilots-the qualified pilot who is always capable of acting, and the qualified pilot who is liable to be superseded if a better can be obtained, (2) that that charge was compulsory; the pilot, however, need not be compulsorily employed at the place where the accident happened, so long as he is compulsorily employed within the district where it happens; (3) that it was solely the p1lot's fault or incapacity which caused the damage. Similarly, under the Harbours, Piers and Docks Clauses Act, the owner of a vessel is not liable for damage done thereby to docks or piers hen she is in charge of a duly licensed pilot. This statutory exemption of a ship in charge of a compulsory pilot from any liability for her negligent navigation by that pilot, is only declaratory of the common law of England, and is based on the principle that the p1lot is a state offlcial put in charge of a ship, and is not the servant of the shipowner so as to make him liable for his negligence; and a British court gives the same effect to any foreign or colonial law which makes it com» pulsory on shipo ners to put a pilot m charge of their ship when th1n their jurisdiction. Most foreign codes, however, while agreeing with English law in making the presence of a pilot on hoard compulsory, differ from it in not putting him in charge of the ship, and m this case the defence of compulsory pilotage cannot be pleaded successfully in British courts. Judicial decisions have established that French, Suez Canal, Danube and Dutch pilots are not compulsory pilots in the British sense of the word, being only advisers of the master, or “living charts.” But if the pilot is put in charge by the foreign or colonial law, although that law expressly provides that in spite of the owner surrendering the charge of the ship to him the owner shall still remain liable, a British court will hold the owner free from habihty, on the ground that to make any person liable for a tort committed abroad, the act complained of must be wrongful not only according to the foreign law, but also by English law. This consequence which English law attaches to the employment of a compulsory pilot has been much criticized in recent times, and it would seem that the foreign view is much more satisfactory in regarding the pilot merely as the adviser and not the superior of the master. lIoreo er, the adoption of the foreign law on this point would restore the old general maritime law. The policy of the law was at one time inclined to extend this principle of compulsory pilotage, on the ground that it was for the benefit of commerce and the safety of seamen's lives,, but it now restricts it within as narrow limits as possible, c g. the presence of a compulsory pilot on board a tow who is directing the navigation of a tug does not protect the tug-owner from liability for negligent navigation. As already pomted out, pilotage authorities have no power to extend its scope.

A pilot who is compulsorily in charge of a ship under English law has supreme control over her navigation, superseding the master for the time being; and if she is a tow he has also control of the navigation of her tug. The judicial decisions establish that it is within his province to decide whether the ship shall get under way, the proper time and place for her to anchor, the way of carrying her anchor, the proper orders for the helm, her rate of speed, and whether the statutory rules of navigation shall be complied with; and the 1naster and crew must not interfere with his control, and only remain liable for the proper execution of the p1lot's orders and the trim and general efficiency as to look-out, &c, of the ship. The master, however, is bound to supersede the pilot in case of his intoxication or manifest incapacity, and to interfere if there is a clear and plain prospect of danger to the ship in following the pilot's directions, e g. getting under way in a thick fog. The pilot is entitled to receive from the master assistance in having his attention called to anything which a competent mariner would see that heoughtto know. A pilot taken voluntarily, and not by compulsion of law, is considered as the servant of the shipowner, and as such renders him liable for his acts of negligence towards third parties. He does not, it seems, supersede the master in the control of the ship, but only advises him. The Admiralty and the Board of Trade and the Trinity House all take the view that the captain or master is bound to keep a vigilant eye on the navigation of the vessel by the pilot, and insist on all proper precautions being taken. For the purposes of a policy of marine insurance a ship is not seaworthy without a pilot in compulsory pilotage waters, and where there is no legal compulsion to have - one, but the locality requires navigation by a person having local knowledge, it has been said that a ship must take a pilot, certainly when leaving a port, and probably on entering a port if a pilot is available.

A pilot can sue for his pilotage fee at common law or in Admiralty (qv), in the latter case provided that the contract was made and the work done not within the body of a county; but he has a lsummary remedy by statute which is of easier application. He cannot be sued in Admiralty for damage done by a collision caused by his negligence' (e g on the Admiralty side of a county court having Admiralty jurisdiction); but he can be made liable at common law or in the Admiralty Division of the High Court, although in the case of a Trinity House pilot his liability is limited to the amount of his bond and pilotage fee then being earned (see above); but the court has refused to join him as a defendant to an action 111 fem brought against the ship of which he had the charge. A pilotage authority cannot be made liable for the negligent navigation of a ship by a pilot which it has licensed, for he is not its servant, though it has been held liable for the negligence of a person not licensed by it as a pilot, but employed by it for wages to pilot ships into a harbour under its jurisdiction, itself taking the pilotage dues and applying them for harbour purposes. A pilot is not in common employment with the master and crew of a ship, and can recover for any injury done him by their negligence He may be entitled to claim salvage from a ship of which he has charge, if the services he renders are beyond the scope of his pilotage contract, either from the outset or owing to supervening circumstances, but not otherwise, whether he is on board her or leading her from his boat. (See SALVAGE)

In the Umted States pilotage laws are regulated by the respective