Eurana (S.S.) v Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1931 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Judicial Committee of the Priby Council
Lords Merrivale, Atkin, Russell, Macmillan, and Sir Launcelot Sanderson
Steamship Eurana v. Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company
Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Corporation of Toronto and others 104 L. T. Rep. 724 (1911) A. C. 461
Railway Act (R. S. Can., 1927, c. 170), ss. 3, 245, 248.
Canada — Railway bridge over navigable channel — Obstruction to navigation
Decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1930) Ex. C. R. 38, reversed
202 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. P.C.] STEAMSHIP EURANA v. BURRARD INLET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY. [P.C. Nov. 1C, 11, 13, 14, 1930, and Jan. 13, 1931. (Present: Lords MEBIUVAI.E, APKIN, RUSSELL, MACMILLAN, and Sir LAUNCF.LOT SANDERSON.) STEAMSHIP EURANA v. BURHARD INLET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY, (a) ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA. Canada - Railway bridge over navigable channel - Obstruction to navigation - Damage caused to ship - Statutory authority - Interference amounting to public nuisance - Railway Act (R. S. Can., 1927, c. 170), ss. 3, 245, 248. The respondent company, which was incorporated by a Dominion statute (9 & 10 Edw. 7, c. 74), built a railway bridge over the Second Narrows in the harbour of Vancouver, B.C. By sect. 16 of that Act the Railway Act, c. 68, Statutes of Canada 1919, was made applicable to the company. The general plan for the bridge was approved by the Governor in Council in 1913. In July 1923 the company obtained a construction order from the Railway Board, but the plans of the bridge approved by such order differed from the general plan approved in 1913. Further alterations were required by the Railway Board, and the work was finally completed in Aug. 1925. By sect. 8 of the Act it was provided that the bridge was " not to interfere with navigation" In an action for damages arising from a collision between the appellants' steamship E. and the respondents' bridge, in which the appellants counter-claimed for damages to their ship on the ground that the bridge was an unlawful obstruction to navigation. Held (1) on the facts, that the bridge in its present form substantially interfered with navigation: (2) that even if the provisions of the Railway Act had been strictly observed in every particular, the power to construct and maintain the bridge was limited by the express condition that it was not to interfere with navigation; and (3) that the defendants had suffered damage by reason of a substantial interference with navigation amounting to a public nuisance for which there was no statutory authority. The counter-claim must accordingly be remitted for damages to be assessed. Decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1930) Ex. C. R. 38, reversed. APPEAL from the judgment of Maclean, J. President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, dated-the 8th Dec. 1929, affirming the judgment of??artin, L.J.A. for the Admiralty District of British Columbia. The appellants' steamship Eurana collided with the respondents' bridge across the Second Narrows of Vancouver Harbour while endeavouring to navigate through the bascule span in the bridge. The plaintiffs, the present respondents, claimed damages against the defendants, the present appellants, in respect of injury to their bridge, and the appellants counterclaimed for damages to their ship arising out of the bridge being an obstruction to navigation. The respondent company was created by Act of Parliament of Canada (9 & 10 Edw. 7, c. 74) with powers to build and operate a railway, including the bridge in question; and the Act incorporated the Railway Act. By sect. 8 the bridge was " not to interfere with navigation." Sect. 245 contained a general prohibition against impeding free navigation of any river, water, or car -1 over which the railway was carried. By sect. 248 before commencing the work the company had to submit to the Minister of Public Works for approval by the Governor in Council a general plan of the works to be constructed, and after approval apply to the board for an (a) Reported by LDWARD.J. M. CHAPLIN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 203 P.C.] STEAMSHIP EURANA v. BURRARD INULET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY. [P.C. order authorising the construction of the works. By sect. 8 the Act was to be construed as incorporate with the special Act, but where the provisions of the Act and of any special Act passed by the Parliament of Canada related to the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial