The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1878-10-05
Dangerous Precedent.


The termination Of a recent action for damages
done 20 Hayes wharf and Sheds opposite Mller's
Point at Sydney against the T.. NJ. :. ship Co.'S
steamer city Of Ner York, seems contrary 20 estab-
lished opinion aud TO what has long beeH supposed
as the real intention Of the Law in regard 10 the
authority and responsibility Of pilots, as well as
that Of the masters and commanders OF vessels
after the pilot was on board and the ship handed
over to his charge. The verdict Of the jury was in
favor Of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
who bad to pay excessive damages and large costs
as the final result, amounting to some 1880 in
all. The Judge having directed the jury that the
defendants were prima Jacie liable unless the COLI
sion actually took place when the ship was under
the charge OF the licensed pilot The actual dam
age was not over 500.
In the pilot system at Sydney. a deep sea pilot
boards vessels outside OF the Heads, and in this
instance the deep sea pilot n~avigated the city Of
NelO Fork as far as Fort Denison. Here the mud
pilot, or assistant harbor master came on board.
The deep sea pilot stated in answer to a query put
by Captain Cobb, that it was the custom for the
mud pilot OF assistant harbor master to move YES
sells, aud then gave up the charge to him. The
Captain of course supposing what the deep sea
pilot stated was correct, felt that the command was
still vested in the pilot, or in other words that the
pilot in r~esigning bis charge 10 the harbor pilot
did it as a part of his duty, and the control OF the
vessel was still beyond his reach. But according
to the verdict Of the jury under the instructions Of
the Judge, strange to say, the responsibility WAS
held as being still on the shoulders OF the Captain,
though bis tongue was tied and his authority set
aside. he having, according to the laws Of New
South Wales, a pilot in charge of the ship.
The precedent that is here laid down is not only
very dangerous indeed, but it is also n very bad
one. The owners Of steamships and other vessels
are according to law compelled to take a pilot or
run the risk of losing their insurance, unless the
pilot law is complied with. Should any damage
occur to a vessel, or should a vessel do any damage
while without a pilot, and thus infringing on the
piiotage laws, the owners are held responsible.
Now in the case above cited, the verdict OF the
jury as well as the instructions Of the Judge were
contrary 10 the generally understood Intentions Of
the law, and hence form a most dangerous prece-
dent nay, il is positively bad, inasmuch as it puts
the owners OF shipping interests entirely at the
mercy Of the pilot, who has full control Of their
ship, and who has or ought to have no authority to
resign or delegate his control TO an irresponsible
person. The pilot commissioners are the parties
who in fact were or ought to have been held re-
sponsible for the damages done to Hayes wharf;
because il a pilot delegates his authority to another
party who might have a spite against a particular
Captain or owner Of a vessel, be could easily take
advantage Of it by running the vessel into such a
position as would be the cause for a heavy action
for damages. Under the English statute owners
are not held responsible by the neglect or incom-
potency Of a pilot in charge, such being prima
fdcie attributable to him. Under the late decision
what is the use of a pilot or what the necessity Of
engaging one if owners are still TO be held respon-
sible for the act, or neglect Of outside and ire
sponsible parties.