410 FEDERAL REPORTER. �In the recent case of The Steam-tiig Lavergne [2 Fed. Eep. 788] I had occasion to consider a similar question. In that case the damage to the tow, which was a light canal-boat, was caused by its pounding against the side of the tug while the lat- ter was rounding to, and thus bringing the canal-boat broadsid& to the wind and sea, in landing another boat which was fast- ened to the other side of the tug. In that particular case it was- held that the peril to the tow, while it was one which the tug must be held bound to have anticipated, and guarded against or avoided, was not so obvions that the master of the canal- boat, in permitting his boat to be taken in tow with knowl- edge of the fact that the other boat was to be landed as it was, or in not objecting to the tug's rounding to as she did to effect that landing, was chargeable with negligence in thua permitting his boat to encounter the peril by which it sus- tained damage. It was held to be a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge and technical skill of the pilot of the tug, that, whatever doubts the master of the canal-boat may have entertained as to the propriety of the movement, the judgment of the pilot of the canal-boat might be justly and properly held to be overbome by, and, without f ault on his part, submitted to what must have been assumed to be, the superior ]udgment of those in charge of the tug. The question in- volved was in that case held to be a question of technical or expert knowledge in the handling of a tug and tow, rather than a question of oommon knowledge or diligence not involv- ing technical skill. But, it was said in that case, "there may be cases where the danger about to be incurred is so very obvions that the master of the canal-boat may be chargeable with contributory negligence in voluntarily exposing his boat to the peril without objection." �In the present case there was no remonstrance or objection on the part of the captain of the canal-boat, and it was proved that he had a long experience as a boatman in crossing the bay at ail seasons of the year. In my judgment, the peril incurred in this case was not one which it required any tech- nical skill to foresee or appreciate. It was one which was patent and obvions to any person in the habit of navigating ����
