Crown Steamship Company v Eastern Navigation Company ‘Crown of Cordova’ v ‘Ethelreda.’
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 38. |
| Date | 21 February 1918 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Hunter, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Dundas, Lord Salvesen, Lord Guthrie.
Ship—Collision—Vessels meeting end on—Fog—Excessive speed—Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, Articles 16 and 18.
Article 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, provides that every vessel shall, in a fog, go at a moderate speed; and article 18 that, when two steam vessels are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each shall alter her course to starboard so that each may pass on the port side of the other, but it is provided that the only cases to which this article applies ‘are cases in which by day each vessel sees the masts of the other in a line, or nearly in a line, with her own.’
Held (rev. judgment of Lord Hunter) that a collision occurring by day during a fog was due to the fault of both vessels, the fault of the one being excessive speed in the existing circumstances, and the fault of the other that her master acted on article 18 and altered her course to starboard, although he saw only the ‘loom’ of the approaching vessel and had not ascertained that her masts were in the position required for the application of that article.
Opinion (per Lord Salvesen and Lord Guthrie) that, as the vessels were on courses which were at least one point apart, they were not end on or nearly end on to each other.
Ship—Collision—Damages—Both vessels in fault—Apportionment of damage—Maritime Conventions Act, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo. V. cap. 57), sec. 1 (1).
Circumstances in which the Court, in apportioning the damage caused by a collision due to the joint fault of the colliding vessels, found that the loss sustained by the owners of each vessel ought to be borne by the owners of one to the extent of two-thirds, and by the owners of the other to the extent of one-third.
On 10th July 1916 The Crown Steamship Company, Limited, the owners of the steamship ‘Crown of Cordova,’ brought an action against The Eastern Navigation Company, Limited, owners of the steamship ‘Ethelreda,’ concluding for £26,000 as damages sustained through a collision between the two vessels.
The collision occurred on the afternoon of 24th April 1916 off the south-east coast of Ireland. The averments on record disclosed that the ‘Crown of Cordova’ was proceeding on a westerly, and the ‘Ethelreda’ on an easterly, course, that the weather was foggy, and that shortly before the collision the master of the former vessel had starboarded his helm while the master of the ‘Ethelreda’ had ported his helm.
The pursuers averred that the collision ‘was brought about entirely through the fault of those in charge of the “Ethelreda,”who failed to navigate the vessel in a seamanlike way and in terms of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. In particular, those in charge of the navigation of the “Ethelreda” were at fault (a) in navigating the vessel at an excessive speed in the weather conditions prevailing at the time; (b) in not keeping a good, or, in any event, an efficient look-out; (c) in failing to stop their engines when they heard the “Crown of Cordova's” fog whistle apparently forward of their beam without having ascertained the position of the “Crown of Cordova”; (d) in failing to keep their course, and in improperly porting the “Ethelreda's” helm; and (e) in failing to take steps timeously and efficiently to take the way off the “Ethelreda” when a collision appeared to be imminent. In so navigating their ship those on board of the “Ethelreda” were guilty of want of ordinary seamanlike care, and were in breach of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and particularly Articles 16, 21, 23, 27, and 29 thereof’.*
The defenders averred that ‘the collision was brought about entirely through the fault of those in charge of the “Crown of Cordova,” who failed to navigate the said vessel in a seamanlike way and in terms of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. In particular, those in charge of the navigation of the “Crown of Cordova” were at fault (a) in navigating that vessel at
an excessive speed in the weather conditions prevailing; (b) in not keeping a good, or, in any event, an efficient, look-out; (c) in failing to stop when they heard the “Ethelreda's” fog whistle apparently forward of their beam; (d) in improperly altering her course by starboarding her helm; and (e) in failing to take steps timeously and efficiently to take the way off the vessel when a collision appeared to be imminent. Those in charge of the “Crown of Cordova” failed to observe the rules of good seamanship, and committed a breach of the said Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, particularly Articles 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 29 thereof.’
The pursuers pleaded;—The said collision having been caused by the fault of the defenders or of those for whom they are responsible, and the pursuers having thereby sustained loss and damage to the extent of the sum sued for, the pursuers are entitled to decree as concluded for.
The defenders pleaded, inter alia;—(3) The said collision not having been caused by the, fault of the defenders or of those for whom they are responsible, the defenders should be assoilzied from the conclusions of the summons. (4) The said collision having been caused by the fault of the pursuers or of those for whom they are responsible, the defenders are entitled to absolvitor with expenses.
A proof was allowed and was led on 28th June 1917 before Lord Hunter, with a nautical assessor. The material facts established at the proof are set forth in the opinions of the Lord Ordinary and of the Judges of the Second Division.*
On 13th July 1917 the Lord Ordinary (Hunter) assoilzied the defenders.
Lord Hunter's opinion.—About ten minutes past 4 p.m. on Monday, 24th April 1916, a collision took place off the south-east coast of Ireland between the s.s. ‘Crown of Cordova’ of Glasgow and the s.s. ‘Ethelreda’ also of Glasgow. The ‘Crown of Cordova’ is a vessel of 3471 tons gross and 2238 tons net registered tonnage; while the tonnage of the ‘Ethelreda’ is 2218 gross and 1403 net.
On 23rd April 1916 the ‘Crown of Cordova’ left Glasgow on a voyage to Santa Rosalia in the Gulf of California. On the afternoon of 24th April she passed the Tuskar Lighthouse off the south-east coast of Ireland and then proceeded on a course west-by-south magnetic. There was a strong south-south-west wind blowing with a moderately heavy sea. According to her own case and evidence the weather became foggy about 4 o'clock. The ‘Ethelreda’ was proceeding upon a course east magnetic. It may be taken as common ground that the density of the fog was such that the vessels did not come into sight of each other until they were only about a quarter of a mile apart.
Notwithstanding the fog the ‘Crown of Cordova’ was proceeding at full engine speed until after she sighted the ‘Ethelreda.’ I am advised by the Assessor that this was imprudent, and that there was nothing in the direction and strength of the wind or in the state of the sea to justify this course being followed. According to the first paragraph of article 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, ‘Every vessel shall, in a fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rainstorms, go at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions.’ No attempt was made by the master to take off speed when the ‘Crown of Cordova’ entered the fog at 4 o'clock. His explanation for not doing so is that, if he had reduced his speed, his vessel would not, owing to the state of wind and sea, have steered properly, and might have become unmanageable. The wind, however, was not blowing a gale, but only a strong breeze some points on his port side. The evidence in support of the pursuers' contention as to the probability of his vessel becoming unmanageable appeared to me to be neither satisfactory nor convincing.
The engine speed of the ‘Crown of Cordova’ is about 9 knots an hour, and there was a l3/4knot tide behind her. The master and other witnesses for the vessel ‘Crown of Cordova’ put her speed, immediately prior to the time when her engine speed was altered, at about 5 or 6 knots an hour over the ground. This is manifestly a mere estimate. Looking to the distances, according to the log, covered by the vessel in the immediately preceding 24 hours, and in 55 minutes between 2 o'clock and 2.55, I think that the master underestimates the speed, but the Assessor advises me that even the admitted speed of 5 or 6 knots was in the circumstances excessive.
It appears to me to be impossible to say that the excessive speed of the ‘Crown of Cordova’ was not the cause, or at all events a contributory
cause, of the collision, but I think that, upon their own evidence, those navigating that vessel committed at all events one other error.
According to the log kept by the chief officer of the ‘Crown of Cordova,’ at 4.5 p.m. a vessel's whistle was heard on her starboard bow giving one blast, at 4.7 p.m. the order to stand by engines was given, and at 4.8 p.m. slow ahead. The second paragraph of article 16 of the Regulations provides that ‘A steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog-signal of a vessel the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over.’ If the entry in the log be taken as strictly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.S.‘Rowan’ v S.S.‘West Camak.’ S.S.‘Rowan’ v S.S.‘Clan Malcolm.’
...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 S. C. 303. 1 57 and 58 Vict. cap. 60. 2 1 and 2 Geo. V. cap. 57, sec. 4 (1). 3 The Fenham,ELR (1870) L. R., 3 P. C. 212; Cayzer v. Carron Co.ELR, (1884) 9 A......
-
The "Andoni" v The "Saint Angus."
...Sheriff Court and in the Court of Session. 1 S.S. "Rowan" v. S.S. "West Cemak," 1923 S. C. 316; "Crown of Corrdova" v. "EthelredaELR," 1918 S. C. 303; "The Salabangka," [1943] P. ...
-
The Kaituna
...Cas. 150: 25 L. T. Rep. 514; L. Rep. 4 F. C. 1), The Cleopatra (1856, Swa. 135), Crown Steamship Company v. Eastern Navigation Company (1918, S. C. 303), The Otranto (144 L. T. Rep. 251 (19??1) A. C. 194). Cur. adv. vult. July 3, 1933.-Scrutton, L.J.-This appeal concerns a collision at nigh......
- The Kaituna