Crawford (‘Warsaw’) v Granite City Steamship Company, Ltd, (‘Linn o' Dee’)
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 155. |
| Date | 05 July 1906 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Ardwall, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Kyllachy, Lord Stormonth-Darling, Lord Low.
Ship—Collision—Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, 16, 19, 21, 22, and 23—Fog—Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. cap. 60), secs. 418 and 419.—
In cross actions arising out of a collision between two steam vessels, the ‘Warsaw’ and the ‘Linn o' Dee,’ it was proved that, in a dense fog, when neither vessel could see the other, the ‘Warsaw's’ whistle was heard on the ‘Linn o' Dee's’ starboard bow, that thereupon the ‘Linn o' Dee's’ engines were stopped. It was maintained for the ‘Warsaw’ that the ‘Linn o' Dee’ was to blame, in respect that she ought to have acted on the assumption that the ‘Warsaw’ was a crossing ship, and should have reversed her engines, and kept out of the ‘Warsaw's’ way, and that by failing to do so she was in breach of Articles 19 and 23 of the Collision Regulations.
Held that the ‘Linn o' Dee’ was not to blame upon that ground, in respect that by stopping her engines and navigating with caution she had conformed to Article 16 of the Regulations, and that Article 16 was the only article applicable in a fog, so long as the position and course of the other vessel were not accurately ascertained.
Held, further, that the ‘Warsaw’ was to blame, in respect that she had failed to stop her engines when she heard the ‘Linn o' Dee's.’ whistle, and was kept at a considerable speed till the ‘Linn o' Dee’ came in sight.
Observations as to the application of the Steering and Sailing Rules in Fog.
Proof—Mathematical inference not put to witnesses at proof—Collision at Sea—Shipping Law.—
In an action arising out of a collision at sea in a fog, it was maintained on a reclaiming note for vessel A that, as matter of mathematical demonstration from certain facts proved by evidence in the, cause, vessel B must have been going faster than vessel A. This theory had not been put to B's witnesses at the proof, and was first suggested in the Inner-House. Held that in these circumstances it could not be considered by the Court.
On 27th August 1905, between 3 and 4 p.m., a collision took place between the s.s. ‘Warsaw’ and the s.s. ‘Linn o' Dee’ at a point about 63 miles S.E. by E. of the Bass Rock. At the time of the collision the ‘Warsaw’ was proceeding on a voyage from Leith to Hamburg, and the ‘Linn o' Dee’ was on a voyage from Libau to Bo'ness. The wind was light, with a heavy sea from the east, and there was a dense fog. Both vessels sustained damage in the collision, the vessel most seriously injured being the ‘Linn o' Dee.’
Actions were brought by John Wood Crawford and another, the owners of the ‘Warsaw,’ against the Granite City Steamship Company, Limited, the owners of the ‘Linn 0' Dee,’et e contra, for the damages sustained by these vessels respectively in the collision.
It was alleged for the ‘Warsaw’ that on hearing the whistle of a steamer (which ultimately proved to be the ‘Linn 0' Dee’) on her port bow, the ‘Warsaw's’ engines were stopped; that the ‘Linn o' Dee’ loomed suddenly out of the fog on the ‘Warsaw's’ port bow; that the ‘Warsaw's’ engines were reversed and put full speed astern, but that the ‘Linn 0' Dee’ continued to come on at considerable speed, and struck the ‘Warsaw's’ stem with her starboard quarter; that the collision was caused entirely through the fault and unskillful navigation of those in charge of the ‘Linn o' Dee,’ and by their failing to observe the Collision Regulations, and in particular, Articles 16, 19, 22, 23, and 29 thereof;* and that the ‘Linn o' Dee,’ was in fault (1) in failing (a) to go at a moderate speed, (b) to stop her engines on hearing forward of her beam the fog-signals of the ‘Warsaw,’ and (c) to navigate with caution; (2) in failing to keep out of the way of the ‘Warsaw’; (3) in taking a course across the bows of the ‘Warsaw’; and (4) in failing on approaching the ‘Warsaw’ to slacken her speed, or stop, or reverse.
On the other hand it was alleged for the ‘Linn o' Dee’ that on hearing a steamer's whistle on her starboard bow the engines of the ‘Linn o' Dee’ were at once stopped; that succeeding blasts broadening on the starboard side of the ‘Linn o' Dee’ were heard and answered; that the ‘Warsaw’ suddenly loomed out of the fog a-beam of the ‘Linn o' Dee’ and came on at an excessive rate of speed heading for about amidships of the ‘Linn o' Dee’; that the engines of the ‘Linn o' Dee’ were instantly put full speed ahead and the helm hard-a-port; that this was the only possible way of avoiding a collision; but that the ‘Warsaw,’ owing to the speed at which she was being navigated, struck the ‘Linn o' Dee’ on her starboard quarter, and cut into her; that the collision was caused entirely through the negligent and reckless navigation of those on board the ‘Warsaw,’ and by their failure to observe the Collision Regulations, and in particular, Articles 16, 23, and 29; that the speed of the ‘Warsaw’ was excessive, and in the circumstances rendered collision inevitable; that when the vessels approached one another the ‘Warsaw’
did not slacken speed, or stop, or reverse; and that no proper look-out was kept on board of her.
The actions were conjoined, and proof was allowed and led. The case was heard with a Nautical Assessor.
The following summary of the facts established is taken from the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk:—‘The facts as I consider them to be established by the evidence are (1) that when both the “Warsaw” and the “Linn o' Dee” were in a fog which made it impossible for a view to be obtained by one vessel of the other, the whistle of the “Warsaw” was heard upon the “Linn o' Dee's” starboard bow and was responded to; (2) that when the “Warsaw's” signal was heard, the “Linn o' Dee's” engines were stopped; (3) that when the vessels came into view of one another there was but a short distance between them, and the “Warsaw” was pointing towards the starboard side of the “Linn o' Dee”; (4) that at this time the way was nearly off the “Linn o' Dee”; (5) that to avoid the collision or prevent her being struck amidships the “Linn o' Dee” put her engines full speed ahead and her helm hard-a-port; (6) that the “Warsaw” continued to come on at a considerable speed—not less than five knots an hour—and struck the “Linn o' Dee” and cut clean into her in a slanting direction from her starboard quarter towards her port side; (7) that at the moment of contact there was none or very little way on the “Linn o' Dee”; (8) that the “Warsaw” had been kept at a considerable speed up to the time of the vessels sighting one another, and that when she struck she had still considerable way upon her; (9) that the blow was a direct and horizontal blow, and not a blow by the sea throwing the “Warsaw” down upon the “Linn o' Dee.”’
Those in charge of the ‘Warsaw’ deponed that their course prior to the collision was S.E. by E. magnetic, and that they heard the fog-signals of the ‘Linn o' Dee’ narrowing on their port bow. Those in charge of the ‘Linn o' Dee’ deponed that their course was W. 3/4 S., and that they heard the ‘Warsaw's fog-signals broadening on their starboard bow.
The other facts in the case sufficiently appear from the interlocutors and the opinions of the Judges.
On 9th January 1906 the Lord Ordinary (Ardwall), pronounced this interlocutor:—‘The Lord Ordinary having taken the proof, heard counsel for the parties, consulted with the Nautical Assessor, and considered the cause, Finds that the collision which took place between the steamship “Warsaw” of Leith and the steamship “Linn o' Dee” of Aberdeen on Sunday the 27th August 1905, was caused by the fault of those in charge of the steamship “Warsaw” in navigating the said vessel at too high a rate of speed in a dense fog, and in not stopping and reversing her engines when it became apparent from the direction of the sound signals coming from the “Linn o' Dee” that that vessel was proceeding in a direction from port to starboard of the “Warsaw”: Finds that those in charge of the “Linn o' Dee” were not to blame to any extent for the said collision: Therefore, in the action at the instance of John Wood Crawford and another, the owners of the “Warsaw” against the Granite City Steamship Company, Limited, the owners of the “Linn o' Dee” assoilzies the defenders from the conclusions of the action; and, in the action at the instance of the Granite City Steamship Company, Limited, against John Wood Crawford and another, Finds the defenders liable to make payment to the pursuers of such sum as shall represent the damage caused to the pursuers by the said collision: Continues the cause, in order that the amount of the said damage may be ascertained; and reserves mean-time all questions of expenses, and grants leave to reclaim.’*
The owners of the ‘Warsaw’ reclaimed.
The reclaiming note was heard with a Nautical Assessor.
Argued for the ‘Warsaw’ (reclaimers);—(1) The collision was due to the fault of the ‘Linn o' Dee.’ When she heard a whistle on her starboard bow she was bound to reverse as well as stop,1 or at least she was bound to do so on hearing the second or third whistle. She was bound to keep out of the way of the ‘Warsaw,’2 and not to cross her bow.3 The vessels here were crossing vessels, and the signals shewed that at least they might be so. When a steam vessel in a fog hears signals consistent with the other ship being either a passing ship or a ship crossing from starboard to port, she was bound to assume that the other vessel was a ship so crossing, and to act accordingly. She was bound to avoid not only collision but risk of collision. Those on board were responsible for failure to observe Regulations if they ought to have known, just as much as if they did know, that the
Regulations were applicable. The articles were all to be read together, and the Sailing and Steering Rules, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.S.‘Rowan’ v S.S.‘West Camak.’ S.S.‘Rowan’ v S.S.‘Clan Malcolm.’
...(1875) 31 L. T. 103; The Oceanic, (1903) 9 Asp. M. C. 378; Crawford (Warsaw) v. Granite City Steamship Co. (Linn o' Dee)SC, (1906) 8 F. 1013, Lord Ardwall, at p. 1017; The Zadok, (1883) 9 P. D. 114, Sir J. Hannen, at p. 115; The Counsellor, [1913] P. 70; Crown of Cordova v. Ethelreda, 1918 ......
-
Crown Steamship Company v Eastern Navigation Company ‘Crown of Cordova’ v ‘Ethelreda.’
...3 The ‘Campania,’ [1901] P. 289, at p. 294; Windram v. RobertsonSC, 7 F. 665, at p. 673; Crawford v. Granite City Steamship Co.SC, (1906) 8 F. 1013; The ‘James Joicey’ v. The ‘Kostrena,’ 1908 S. C. 295; Marsden's Collisions at Sea, pp. 374 and 4 The ‘Jesmond’ and The ‘Earl of Elgin,’ (1871)......
-
Anglo Newfoundland Development Company Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Company Ltd; Owners of the Bogota v Owners of the Alconda
...C. 556. Cf. Marsden, Collisions at Sea, (8th ed.) Appx. II., p. 507. 6 The Harberton,ELR [1913] P. 149. 7 Warsaw v. Linn o' Dee,SC (1906) 8 F. 1013. 1 Admiralty Commissioners v. s.s. Volute, [1922] 1 A. C. 2 (1920) 2 Lloyd's List Law Reports, 505. 3 The Karamea,ELR [1921] P. 76; The Peter B......
-
The ‘James Joicey’ v The ‘Kostrena.’
...on Collisions at Sea, 5th ed., p. 374. engines. The reason of the rule, as explained by the Lord Justice-Clerk in the case of The Warsaw,SC 8 F. 1013, is to give opportunity of accurate observation of sound; and it is noticeable that according to the engineer's log the Kostrena had done thi......