Heranger, S.S. (Owners) v Diamond, S.S. (Owners)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1938 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 15 December 1938 |
Shipping - Collision - Port of London River By-laws - Duty thereunder - Whether one vessel entitled to expect other vessel to comply with by-laws - Failure to reduce speed substantially earlier.
In an action arising out of a collision in the Thames between the Diamond and the Heranger, Bucknill J. and the Court of Appeal (Scott L.J. dissenting) held that the Diamond was the more seriously to blame, but that the Heranger was also to blame by failing to take effective action earlier by reducing her speed, and was liable in the proportion of one-third.
On appeal by the Heranger:—
Held, that the Heranger left it too late to reverse her engines and thus reduce her speed, and was therefore in part liable for the collision.
Per Lord Wright: The question whether a vessel is justified in maintaining her speed and relying on another vessel taking action to avoid the possibility of collision is a question of fact and not of law. View to the contrary expressed by Hill J. in The Haliartus(
Per Lord Wright: Whatever the Admiralty law on the matter was before the
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiffs, the owners of the steamship Diamond, claimed damages in respect of a collision with the defendants' steamship Heranger which occurred in the Thames on December 20, 1936, which they alleged was due to the negligence of those on board the Heranger. The defendants alleged that the collision was due to the negligence of those on board the Diamond.
The action was tried by Bucknill J., who held that the Diamond was to blame for her failure to comply with Rule 33 of the Port of London River By-laws, but that the Heranger, although placed in a difficulty by the action of the Diamond, was likewise to blame in failing to reduce her speed earlier than she did. He accordingly found both vessels to blame — the Diamond two-thirds, and the Heranger one-third.
On appeal by the Heranger, the Court of Appeal (Scott L.J. dissenting) affirmed the decision of Bucknill J.
The owners of the Heranger appealed to this House.
R. F. Hayward K.C. and Gordon Willmer for the appellants. Bucknill J. and the majority of the Court of Appeal were wrong in holding the Heranger to blame in part for the collision. It is said against us that our pilot ought to have given directions for the engines to be reversed substantially sooner than he did. We submit that is not so. We performed our duty under by-law 33; it remained for those in charge of the Diamond to do theirs; and that they failed to do. Until it was seen that the Diamond was not going to comply with her duty under by-law 33 the Heranger was under no obligation to take action, being entitled to assume that those on board the Diamond would act in accordance with the by-law. [They referred to The AeneasF1, The Haliartus.F2]
Kenneth Carpmael K.C. and Owen L. Bateson for the respondents were not called upon.
The House took time for consideration.
Dec. 15. LORD ATKIN. My Lords, I have had an opportunity in this case of reading the opinion which is about to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Wright. I agree with it, and I will only add that as the result of the decision in this case, it is clear that the decision in the case of The AeneasF3 must be taken to be overruled.
LORD THANKERTON. My Lords, I am of the same opinion.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN. My Lords, I also concur.
LORD WRIGHT. My Lords, the appellants have been held by Bucknill J. and the Court of Appeal (Scott L.J. dissenting) liable in the proportion of one-third for the damages resulting from a collision between their vessel the Heranger and the respondents' vessel the Diamond, who have been held liable for two-thirds of the damage. They are appealing in order to secure a judgment that the Diamond was solely to blame.
The collision took place at about 6.12 P.M. on December 30, 1936, in the River Thames nearly opposite Stone Ness Point. The night was dark but fine and clear; there was a slight southerly breeze, the tide was ebb, and of about 2 knots in force. The Heranger is a twin screw motor vessel of 4877 tons gross register and 398 feet long. She was bound down the river from Victoria Dock to Antwerp, partly laden, and in charge of a Trinity House pilot named Dean. The Diamond is a small steamship of 628 tons gross register and 170 feet long. She was in ballast and was drawing 3 feet 6 inches forward and 11 feet 3 inches aft. She was at the time proceeding to the Kent Portland Cement Company's wharf, which is on the south side of the river west of Greenhithe from the Bell wharf, which is also on the south side of the river and is in St. Clement's Reach. The collision took place about opposite Johnson's wharf, which is between Greenhithe and the Kent Company's wharf, at a point in the stream about 500 feet from the south shore and just on the edge of the dredged channel. The river at that point is about half a mile wide. Unfortunately the master and one of the men were drowned. Thus the master, who had been both steering and navigating the Diamond, could not give his side of the story. The facts, however, have been very clearly found by the learned judge, whose findings have been accepted by both parties. Indeed there was practically no dispute about what happened, except as to the whistle signals given respectively by the two vessels. The displacement of the Heranger is calculated at 10,000 tons and of the Diamond at 800 tons.
The Heranger was about abreast of Stone Court wharf when she first sighted the Diamond. The Diamond was then coming up St. Clement's Reach. The judge found she was sighted at 6.6 P.M. She was showing her green light and a single masthead light; she was distant about one mile and was 2½ points on the port bow of the Heranger. The pilot of that vessel expected the Diamond to open her red when she began to round Stone Ness, so as to comply with Rule 33 of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd (THE 'ALEXANDRA 1' and 'EVER SMART')
...channel rule governs the case, and not the crossing rules; The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse[1907] P 259, The Heranger(1938) 62 Ll L Rep 204; [1939] AC 94, The Empire Brent(1948) 81 Ll L Rep 306. If one of the ships is not proceeding along the channel at all, but crossing more or less directly ......
-
Ms Lorna Armstead v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd
...is equally clear that the legal burden is on the defendant to assert and prove contributory negligence: see, eg, Owners of SS Heranger v Owners of SS Diamond [1939] AC 94, 104. 61 As regards legal causation (by which we mean the question whether an intervening event subsequent to the tort h......
-
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver
...(1979) at 224, n 54. 71 [1999] NSWCA 275 at [2]. 72McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 at 315; SS Heranger (Owners) v SS Diamond (Owners) [1939] AC 94 at 101; Hicks v British Transport Commission [1958] 2 All ER 39; Balkin and Davis, Law of Torts, 2nd ed (1996) at 338, n 73 [1999] NSWCA 275 ......
-
Joslyn v Berryman;Wentworth Shire Council v Berryman
...ALJR 867 at 885 [90]; 179 ALR 321 at 345. 86 Citing McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 at 315; SS Heranger (Owners) v SS Diamond (Owners) [1939] AC 94 at 101; Hicks v British Transport Commission [1958] 2 All ER 39; Balkin and Davis, Law of Torts, 2nd ed (1996) at 338 n 37. 87Sungravure Pt......
-
To what extent can unmanned ships comply with COLREGs 1972 and how will the liability of such vessels be assessed?
...Conventions Act 1911, however in The Aeneas [1935] P128 it was evident a shadow of the principle was present. That was until The Heranger [1939] AC 94, which abolished the doctrine once and for all. 166 Mandaraka-Sheppard (n 127) 3.1. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to discharge ......
-
Maritime Collisions
...Rep 440 at 447; Petroship B (The) , [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251 (QB); Saragossa (The) (1892), 7 Asp MLC 289 at 291 (CA); The Heranger (1938), [1939] AC 94 at 102 (HL); State of Himachal Pradesh (The) , [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 573, aff’d [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 97 (CA); Da Ye (The), above note 21; Wa......