Admiralty Commissioners v S.S. Amerika

Dec. 19. EARL LOREBURN. My Lords, in my opinion this appeal fails. It is far too late for this House to disturb the rule expressed by Lord Ellenborough in Baker v. Bolton^F16, even were we of opinion that the common law ought originally to have been differently interpreted, of which I am by no means persuaded. When a rule has become inveterate from the earliest time, as this rule appears to have been, it would be legislation pure and simple were we to disturb it. I also think that the damages sought are not in any way recoverable, because they represent sums of money which the appellants were not legally required to pay.

Your Lordships have been interested in ascertaining the origin of Lord Ellenborough's decision. I share in that interest, but I cannot throw any light on the subject beyond what may be derived from the opinions of Lord Parker and Lord Sumner, both of which I have had the advantage and the pleasure of reading.

LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON.^F17 My Lords, I agree. There are in my opinion two sufficient reasons why th s appeal cannot succeed. The first is that the items of damage which the appellants desire to be allowed are too remote. The second is that no sufficient case has been made for overruling Lord Ellenborough's decision in Baker v. Bolton^F18 to the effect that in a civil court the death of a human being cannot be complained of as an injury. I will deal with each of these reasons separately.

The items of damage which the appellants desire to have allowed consist of certain pensions and allowances, particulars of which will be found at pp. 39–42 of the appendix. These pensions and allowances are granted under statutory authority, but it does not appear that their grant formed any part of the contract between the Admiralty and the seamen whose lives have been lost through the respondents' negligence. They are, it seems, compassionate pensions and allowances only, which, from a legal standpoint, the Admiralty might have granted or withheld at its discretion. Under these circumstances they cannot constitute an item of damage. No person aggrieved by an injury is by common law entitled to increase his claim for damage by any voluntary act; on the contrary, it is his duty, if he reasonably can, to abstain from any act by which the damage could be in any way increased. But further, even if the pensions and allowances in question were granted pursuant to contracts between the Admiralty and the deceased seamen, I should still be of opinion that they could not properly constitute an item of damage for loss of service. They would in this case constitute deferred payment for services already rendered, and have no possible connection with the future services of which the Admiralty had been deprived.

Passing to the second of the reasons above mentioned, I may point out that the correctness of the ruling in Baker v. Bolton^F18 has since been accepted, not only by all Courts in this country, but by the Supreme Court of the United States, nor can anything be found in the earlier authorities inconsistent with it. It was, it is true, severely criticized by Lord Bramwell in Osborn v. Gillett.^F19 It was, he considered, anomalous that a master should be entitled to recover for loss of service if his servant were wrongfully injured, but should be without any remedy if his servant were wrongfully killed. If it were any part of the functions of this House to consider what rules ought to prevail in a logical and scientific system of jurisprudence, much might no doubt be said for this criticism; though it is not, in my opinion, by any means clear that the anomaly does not in reality consist rather in granting the remedy in the former case than in refusing it in the latter...