Anglo Newfoundland Development Company Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Company Ltd; Owners of the Bogota v Owners of the Alconda
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 56. |
| Date | 01 March 1923 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
Lord Justice-Clerk (Alness), Lord Ormidale, Lord Hunter, Lord Anderson.
ShipCollisionVessels manuvring in narrow channelVessel being towed out of graving-dock in riverClyde Navigation Bye-laws 3 and 19Turning roundUnder her own steamCrossing from one side of the river towards the other.
The Bogota, a steamer 415 feet in length, was being towed stern first by a tug out of a graving-dock on the Clyde, at a point where the river is barely 500 feet broad, preparatory to proceeding upstream. She had steam in her boilers, but was not using it. When she was two-thirds of her length out of the dock and slanting across and down the river, the Bogota sighted, some three-quarters of a mile away, the s.s. Alconda coming up the river under her own steam with two tugs attached. The Bogota and her tug gave four short blasts, which were repeated, as a warning that the river was blocked, and continued their manuvre. The Alconda, however, held on her course, and, in attempting to pass between the Bogota's tug and the bank, struck the tug while the latter was still about 100 feet from the bank, with the result that the tug was forced back on the Bogota, and all three vessels were damaged.
Held (diss. Lord Ormidale) (1) that the Bogota was not under her own steam, and was not crossing from one side of the river towards the other side within the meaning of bye-law 19 of the Clyde Navigation Bye-laws, and accordingly was not bound by that bye-law to keep out of the way of vessels navigating up and down the river; (2) that, in the circumstances, the Bogota, having warned the Alconda of her manuvre, was entitled to complete the operation in which she was engaged, and that the latter vessel, in holding on her course in spite of the signal which she had received, was alone responsible for the collision.
Opinions, further, per the Lord Justice-Clerk and Lord Hunter, that the Bogota was a vessel turning round within the meaning of bye-law 3, and that, accordingly, under that bye-law, a duty was imposed on the approaching Alconda to keep out of her way. Opinions contra, per Lord Ormidale and Lord Anderson.
ShipEvidenceExpert evidence involving nautical skillCourt assisted by nautical assessor.
Opinion, per Lord Hunter, that, in maritime cases where the Court is assisted by a nautical assessor, expert evidence involving questions of nautical skill and experience is not admissible, and that in this respect no difference exists between Scots and English practice.
On 21st December 1921 the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, Liverpool, incorporated by Royal Charter, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, Newfoundland. The pursuers sued for payment of 5000 in name of damages for injuries sustained by their vessel the s.s. Bogota, as the result of a collision in the Clyde, on 9th December 1921, alleged to have been caused by the fault of the s.s. Alconda, owned by the defenders.
The defenders denied liability, on the ground that the collision was due entirely to the fault of the Bogota and her tug the Samson, and they counter-claimed for 1000.
A proof was led in the Sheriff Court,* the import of the facts established at which appears from the following interlocutor, pronounced by the Second Division on 1st March 1923:Find in fact (1) that the Bogota, a steamer of 415 feet over all in length, and 52.4 feet in breadth, belonging to the pursuers, on the afternoon of Friday, 9th December 1921, had occasion to leave Elderslie Graving-Dock and proceed up the river eastwards to Prince's Dock on the south bank; (2) that the said graving-dock is on the north bank of the River Clyde, and is inclined to it westwards at an angle of about 30 degrees; (3) that the Bogota had her own steam up, but had to be drawn out of the dock stern first by the paddle-tug Samson, and that it was intended that, as soon as she had been drawn entirely clear of the dock, she should be attached to and receive the assistance of another tug, the screw-tug Victor, at her bow; (4) that the afternoon was fine and clear with a fresh wind from S.-S.-W., that sunset was at 3.40 p.m., and that there was good visibility up till the time of the collision aftermentioned; (5) that there was a flowing tide which was running about 2 knots per hour; (6) that at 4.32 p.m. the engine-room of the Bogota received from the bridge the order to Stand by; (7) that at this time a Spanish steamer of the Mendi Line was observed coming down the river, and that the Bogota waited till it had passed; (8) that about 4.40, no vessels being in sight, either coming down or going up, the Bogota gave three short blasts with her whistle, and the Samson having replied with similar three short blasts, proceeded to tow the Bogota out of the dock stern first, and that these blast signals were repeated by both vessels after the Bogota had been drawn half way out of the dock; (9) that the Bogota did not give a prolonged blast of the whistle before leaving the graving-dock as prescribed by Rule 18 of the Bye-laws and Regulations of the Clyde Navigation Trustees, but that the failure to give such a blast had no bearing on the collision which subsequently took place; (10) that the movement of the Bogota was hampered (a) by the presence of the War Afridi a large vessel which was moored to the quay just outside the dock entrance with her head pointed to the east, and (b) by the flowing tide, which
operated more and more strongly upon her as she gradually came out of the dock, and had a tendency to throw her stern to the south and her bow towards the bow of the War Afridi; (11) that when the Bogota was about two-thirds out of the dock and the stern of her tug Samson was about mid-channel, the defenders' vessel Alconda,a steamer 381 feet over all in length, under her own steam, and with two tugs attached, one ahead and one astern, was seen rounding the bend of the river below Renfrew Ferry about three-quarters of a mile away; (12) that when the Bogota sighted the Alconda she gave four short blasts of her whistle, which were repeated by the tug Samson thereby indicating to approaching vessels that the river was blocked, and that, as the Alconda came on, the four-blast signal was repeated by both the Bogota and the tug Samson; (13) that, having thus given warning to vessels including the Alconda the Bogota was in the circumstances, and particularly in view of the extent to which her manuvre had been conducted, entitled to continue and complete her movement of quitting the dock and straightening herself in the channel, and that she was not bound to hold on, in the position to which she had attained, till the Alconda had passed; (14) that the Samson's bow was almost directly astern of the Bogota, but slightly towards the port quarter, her bow being only 12 feet from the Bogota's stern, and that she was doing her utmost to keep the stern to the north against the influence of the tide; (15) that while these operations were going on the Alconda with her two tugs was coming up the river at a speed of at least six miles an hour, and that she observed a light in mid-channel when she was about Renfrew Ferry, this light being the stern light of the Samson; (16) that she was continuing on her course when her pilot sighted the hulls of the Bogota and Samson about three or four ship-lengths ahead, and about the same time the master heard a four-blast whistle (which the pilot also heard but took to be a three-blast whistle), and that in reply to the master's inquiry explained that on the Clyde it meant I am blocking the river; (17) that, notwithstanding, the pilot thought that he could pass to the south of these vessels, and, accordingly, ported his helm, blew one blast of his whistle, and attempted to pass; (18) that in doing so he collided at about 4.45 p.m. with the Samson the bow of the Alconda, striking her port quarter, forcing her back on the Bogota's rudder, which fortunately was hard-aport at the time and so acted to some extent as a buffer, but that the Bogota was forced back upon the War Afridi with the result that all four vessels were damaged; (19) that the collision occurred about 100 feet from the south bank, and that the Alconda could have manuvred in safety to within 50 feet of the bank; (20) that the Samson from the position in which she was, could not do anything to escape the collision, and was at the time doing her utmost to keep the Bogota's stern to the north against the tide, in conformity with her orders from the Bogota; (21) that if the Alconda had stopped or held back, as she might have done, when she saw the stern light in mid-channel, or even when she first saw the hulls of the vessels outside the graving-dock and heard the four or three-blast signal, the accident would not have occurred.
The following were the averments of parties on record relative to the responsibility for the collision:(Cond. 3) Said collision was due entirely to the fault and negligence of those in charge of the Alconda in respect that (1) they failed to keep a proper look-out; (2) they proceeded at an improper speed; (3) they failed to hold back until the Bogota had got straightened in the river; (4) they failed to keep out of the way of the Bogota and the Samson; (5) they failed to stop and reverse timeously if at all; (6) they failed to indicate their movements by the requisite whistle signals; and (7) they failed timeously to let go anchor. They were thus in breach of the rules of good seamanship and of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, particularly articles 27, 28, 29, and 30 thereof. They were also in breach of the Clyde Trust Bye-laws, particularly articles 2 and 3 thereof. With reference to the answer, it is denied that the Samson was in fault and that she obstructed the channel. But for the action of the Samson in keeping fast to the Bogota the Alconda would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo Newfoundland Development Company Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Company Ltd; Owners of the Bogota v Owners of the Alconda
...to use those opinions to explain, if necessary, any ambiguity in the findings in fact.’ (In the Court of Session 1st March 1923—1923 S. C. 526.) The Pacific Steam Navigation Company, Liverpool, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Comp......
-
Glaxo Group Ltd v Patents Act
...Vovartis AG v Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2006] EWHC 2506 (Pat), Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh [1953] SC 34, SS Bogota v SS Alconda [1923] SC 526, Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1, Bonzel v Intervention Ltd (No 3) [1991] RPC 553, Vector Corp v Glatt Air Techniques [2007] EWCA Civ 80......
-
James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd
...as a jury, any more than a technical assessor can substitute his advice for the judgment of the Court - S.S. Bogota v. S.S. Alconda [1923] S.C. 526. Their duty is to furnish the Judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enab......
-
Kerry Donnelly V. Fas Products Limited
...sitting as a jury, any more than a technical assessor can substitute his advice for the judgment of the court - SS Bogota v SS Alconda 1923 SC 526. Their duty is to furnish the judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enabl......