Aracelio Iglesias, The (Nidareid.)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WILLMER,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J0509-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | 1966. Folio 188. |
[1968] EWCA Civ J0509-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
Appeal from Karminski J. 22nd November, 1967.
Revised
Lord Justice Willmer
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Assisted by:
Commodore R.H.A. Bond, O.B.E.
Captain R.N. Mayo.
(Nautical Assessors).
Mr GERALD R.A. DARLING, Q.C., and Mr N. BRIDGES-ADAMS (instructed by Messrs Stocken & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
Mr BARRY C. SHEEN. Q.C, and Mr A. STEWART-RICHARDSON (instructed by Messrs Thomas Cooper & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs)
This Is an appeal from a judgment of Mr Justice Karminski given on the 22nd November 1967 In an action arising out of a collision between the plaintiffs' ship NIDAREID and the defendants' ship ARACELIO IGLESIAS (which I propose to call the ARACELIO), the collision having taken place on the evening of the 11th July 1968 la Panama Bay just outside the pacific entrance to the Panama Canal. For that collision the learned judge hold the ARACELIO alone to blame. On appeal It has not been argued that the ARACELIO was free from blame. The appeal has been directed only tothe question whether some a bare of the blame for the collision ought to be imputed to the NIDAREID,
The NIDAREID is a steam vessel of 19,746 tone gross, 631 ft. in length, 83 ft. In beam, and is fitted with steam turbine engines. At the time of the collision she was in the course of a voyage from Peru to Holland carrying a cargo of Iron ore. Her draught was said to be 34 ft.10 ins. forward and aft At the time of the collision she was approaching the Canal from seaward. The ARACELIO la a motor vessel of 9,738 tons gross, 508 ft. in length and 64 ft. is beam. She is fitted with Diesel engines. At the tine of the collision she was in the course of a voyage from Cuba to Japan carrying a cargo of sugar. Her draught la stated to have been 37 ft.7 ins. forward and 33 ft.1 in. aft. The ARACELIO had already passed through the Canal and was in the course of making for the open sea.
It will be convenient, I think, at this stage to say a word about the locus in quo where the collision happened. Outside the Canal, and in continuation thereof, there is a buoyed channel, running in a south-easterly direction for a distance of some four or five miles, and terminating at a pair of buoys numbered 1 and 2. Further seaward beyond the end of the channel, and about two mile further on, is a single buoy described as the fairway buoy, which lies more or less In prolongation of the axis of the channel. The ordinary course for an outward bound vessel, having come down the entrance channel and passed the buoys Nos.1 and 3, would be to continue in a south-easterly direction for some distance towards the fairway buoy, until the light on Taboguilla Island opens, in she would alter course to the southward so as to pass out to sea to the eastward of the Island. Ships coming Into port, as the NIDAREID was, would pass to the eastward of Taboguilla Island on a northerly course Ships arriving after 1900 hours In the evening are not permitted to proceed into the Canal on that day, but must go to anchor and wait until the next day. For that purpose prevision in made for a merchant) ship anchorage ground which covers a substantial area lying to the northward and eastward of the fairway busy. On this occasion theNIDAREID was arriving after 1900 hours, and was in fact intending to proceed straight into the anchorage ground for the purpose of anchoring. The evidence indicates that there were no other ships at the time in the anchorage ground.
The collision occurred at 1916 hours by the NIDAREID'S time or 1912 hours by the ARACELIO'S time. The learned judge in his judgment found that the collision took place about 1915 hours. Nothing, however, turns on the exact point of time except in so far as it is related to the manoeuvres recorded in the respective ships' logs. The place of the collision, as found by the learned judge (and as has been accepted on this appeal) was about half a mile to the south-eastward of the fairway buoy. At the tine of the collision it was already dark, but there was bright moonlight. The weather was fine and clear with excellent visibility. The wind was variously stated by the two parties, but is not, I think, of any relevance. The tide is agreed to have been abb., which would mean that it was running substantially with the ARACELIO but against, and partly course, the course of the NIDAREID. Both whips ware carrying the normal navigation lights; nothing turns on question of lights. The collision occurred between the stem of the NIDAREID and the starboard side of the ARACELIO in the way of No. 4 hatch, that is to say a little abaft amidships, at an angle found by the learned judge to be about 70° leading aft on the ARACELIO.
Let me now briefly describe the events leading up to the collision. The ARACELIO discharged her Canal pilot at the usual place in the neighbourhood of buoys Nos.1 and 2. She then proceeded on her course to sea, putting her engines full speed ahead. She set a course of 137 true, with the fairway buoy bearing fine on her port bow. The NIDAREID was steering a course of N. true, and passed just over a mile to the eastward of Taboguilla light. She was shaping on that course to pass about half a mile to the eastward of the fairway buoy. The NIDAREID was intending to maintain that course right into the anchorage ground. Until after passing the light on Taboguilla Island she was working her engines full speed ahead, making a speed of about 13½ knots. The vessels sighted each other several milesapart, the NIDAREID having the ARACELIO'S green light about 2 points on her port bow, and the ARACELIO having the NIDAREID'S red light about 3 points on her starboard bow. At that moment of time the ARACELIO was emerging (or had just emerged) from the entrance Channel into the open sea. The NIDAREID had already passed Tabogutlla, but was still running with her engines at full speed ahead. Thereafter both ships held their respective courses until very shortly before the collision. That is subject to this qualification There was some evidence of a minor alteration of a few degrees to pert on the part of the ARACELIO, to keep the fairway buoy fine on her pert bow. In substance, however, she was maintaining her original course.
With regard to speed, the ARACELIO throughout, and right up to the moment of the collision, kept her engines working full speed ahead, which meant that she was building up her speed all the time. The learned judge found that by the time of the collision she had reached a speed of about 9 knots. The NIDAREID, shortly after sighting the ARACELIO, began to reduce her speed so as to run off her way preparatory to anchoring. Her deck scrap log records that at 1900 hoers "Stand by, was rung; at 1902 hears the engines were reduced to Slow Ahead, and at 1905 hours they were stopped. She then continued to run off her way with the engines stopped until 1914 hours, when it Is recorded that the engines ware put fell spade astern with two double rings, and the collision Is recorded as occurring two minutes later at 1916 hours. It seem, probable (and I think this mast accepted by the learned judge) that, having regard to the entries in the engine movement book, there was probably not more than about a minute of effective reversing en the part of the NIDAREID. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that she was a turbine ship, and there was evidence in this case (as I think is common knowledge) that turbine ships are inclined to be a little slowed than other classes of ships in effective reversing of the engine, when this becomes necessary.
The learned Judge found that by the time of the collision the speed of the NIDAREID had been reduced to about 7 knots. Thesefindings as to the speeds of the two vessels at the moment of collision can, of course, be no; more than estimates, but the judge's findings on this point have not been challenged on this appeal. One thing which certainly la quite clear Is that both ships must have had substantial speed at the moment of collision, as Is only too plain from the Immense damage illustrated on the photographs placed before the court. The learned judge estimated that, allowing for the difference in courses between the two ships, the joint speed of approach amounted to something like 16 knots. That means, as a matter of arithmetic, a mile in four minutes.
At the last moment, when the vessels were within about half a mile of each other (that is to say, about two minutes before the collision) the ARACELIO ported, and the NIEDREID starboarded. Those alterations of course no doubt account for the fact that the angle between the ships broadened from 40° or thereabouts to 70° or thereabouts by the time of the collision. The helmsman of the ARACELIO said that the heading of his ship at the moment of collision was 121° true, If that is right (and no one has challenged It before us) It would follow that the heading of the NIDAREID must have been about 11° true. That would mean that, under the combined effect of her starboard helm and reversed engines, she had gone off somewhere about a point so starboard from her original course.
On these facts, I think it is perfectly plain that at some time these vessels came under the duties of ships crossing on courses involving risk of collision, Witnesses from each of the ships said that over a substantial period the bearing of the ether chip remained constant. That, as is well known, is an infallible warning to mariners that the vessels are approaching with risk of collision, In the position In which the vessels were approaching each other. It is plain that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owners of the ship 'Topaz' v Owners of the ship 'Irapua' [QBD (Admiralty)]
...that the stand-on vessel was going to take for the object she had in view, not the course and speed at any particular moment: see, The Aracelio Iglesias [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 7, esp. at pp. 11–12, together with the other authorities referred to there. Mr. Russell's contention was that this ......