COLLISIONS

1. Williams v. Yatco, 1914

G.R. No. L-8325, March 10, 1914; J. Carson

The steamer Subic, owned by the defendant, collided with the lunch Euclid owned by
the plaintiff, in the Bay of Manila at an early hour on the morning of January 9, 1911, and
the Euclid sank five minutes thereafter. This action was brought to recover the value of the
Euclid.

The court below held from the evidence submitted that the Euclid was worth at a fair
valuation P10,000; that both vessels were responsible for the collision; and that the loss
should be divided equally between the respective owners, P5,000 to be paid the plaintiff by
the defendant, and P5,000 to be borne by the plaintiff himself. From this judgment both
defendant and plaintiff appealed.

Held: Judgment affirmed. n the case at bar, the most that can be said in support of
plaintiff's contention is that there was negligence on the part of the officers on defendant's
vessel in failing to recognize the perilous situation created by the negligence of those in
charge of plaintiff's launch, and that had they recognized it in time, they might have
avoided the accident. But since it does not appear from the evidence that they did, in fact,
discover the perilous situation of the launch in time to avoid the accident by the exercise of
ordinary care, it is very clear that under the above set out limitation to the rule, the plaintiff
cannot escape the legal consequences of the contributory negligence of his launch.

2. Smith Bell and Co. v C.A.

197 SCRA 201, G.R. No. L-56294, May 20, 1991; J. Feliciano

Transportation; Admiralty; The failure of the“ Don Carlos” to have on board, on the
night of the collision, a “proper look-out” constitutes negligence.—The second
circumstance constitutive of negligence on the part of the “Don Carlos” was its failure to
have on board that night a “proper look-out” as required by Rule I (B). Under Rule 29 of the
same set of Rules, all consequences arising from the failure of the “Don Carlos” to keep a
“proper look-out” must be borne by the “Don Carlos.” Judge Cuevas’ summary of the
evidence said: “The evidence on record likewise discloses very convincingly that ‘Don
Carlos’ did not have a ‘look-out’ whose sole and only duty is only to act as such. x x x” A
“proper look-out” is one who has been trained as such and who is given no other duty save
to act as a look-out and who is stationed where he can see and hear best and maintain good
communication with the officer in charge of the vessel, and who must, of course, be vigilant.
Judge Cuevas wrote: “The ‘look-out’ should have no other duty to perform. (Chamberlain v.
Ward, 21, N.O.W. 62, U.S. 548, 571). He has only one duty, that which its name implies—to
keep a ‘look-out’. So a deckhand who has other duties, is not a proper ‘look-out’ (Brooklyn
Perry Co. v. U.S., 122, Fed. 696). The navigating officer is not a sufficient ‘look-out’ (Larcen
B. Myrtle, 44 Fed. 779)—Griffin on Collision, pages 277-278). Neither the captain nor the
[helmsman] in the pilothouse can be considered to be a ‘look-out’ within the meaning of the
maritime law. Nor should he be stationed in the bridge. He should be as near as practicable
to the surface of the water so as to be able to see low-lying lights (Griffin on Collision, page
273). On the strength of the foregoing authorities, which do not appear to be disputed even
by the defendant, it is hardly probable that neither German or Leo Enriquez may qualify as
‘look-out’ in the real sense of the word.” (Emphases supplied) In the case at bar, the failure
of the “Don Carlos” to recognize in a timely manner the risk of collision with the “Yotai
Maru” coming in from the opposite direction, was at least in part due to the failure of the
“Don Carlos” to maintain a proper look-out.