## Facts

- New York law regulated pilot education and licensing and required masters of foreign vessels bound to or from New York to take a licensed pilot or pay pilotage as if one had been employed.
- The statute imposed penalties for unlicensed pilotage, including fines or imprisonment for unlicensed pilots and forfeitures for those employing them.
- Under port rules, the first pilot offering services to an inbound vessel had the right to pilot the vessel in and later pilot it out.
- The statute did not contain a provision exonerating a vessel, master, or owner from liability for loss caused by a licensed pilot’s negligence.
- The steamship *China*, a foreign vessel departing New York, was in pilot waters and under the control of a licensed New York pilot.
- While so navigated, the *China* collided with and sank the *Kentucky*, a U.S. vessel.
- The collision resulted from the gross fault of the licensed pilot in charge of the *China*.
- The *Kentucky*’s owners filed an admiralty libel against the *China* in rem in the Southern District of New York; the district court held the vessel liable, and the circuit court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a vessel is liable in rem for collision damage caused solely by the negligence of a state-licensed pilot taken pursuant to a compulsory pilotage statute.
2. Whether compulsory pilotage, without an express statutory immunity clause, relieves the vessel or owner from maritime tort liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decree holding the *China* liable in rem.
- The Court held that New York’s pilotage regime effectively compelled foreign vessels to take a licensed pilot.
- Despite that compulsion, the vessel remained liable in rem for torts committed in navigation when the statute did not expressly exempt the vessel or owner from liability.
- The Court grounded liability in maritime law’s in rem doctrine and maritime lien, rather than common-law master–servant principles.

## Legal Principles

- In rem liability for maritime torts arises from maritime law, which imposes a maritime lien on the vessel for torts committed by it.
- A compulsory state pilotage statute does not, by itself, displace general maritime rules imposing in rem liability for collision.
- Statutory immunity from pilot-caused losses will not be inferred; an exemption from vessel or owner liability must be stated explicitly to alter the maritime rule.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a vessel remains liable in rem for collision damage caused solely by a compulsory state-licensed pilot when the governing pilotage statute compels pilotage but contains no express provision immunizing the vessel or owner from liability.


The China, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 53 (1868)