Morrison v The General Steam Navigation Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1853 |
| Date | 23 April 1853 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1547
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 22 L J Ex 233
[733] morrison v 'I he Un.Ni.RAi, .stlam xaviuahon company April J,i, L8,"),J - Under the 14 At, If) Vrit c 79, by whuh the Lords of the Admiralty aic empowered to make regulations with respect to steam navigation and to the boaK ami lights to be earned by sea-going vessels, teitain legulations were published with legaid to "sailing vessels," by which "all sailing vessels at anchor in load steads or fairways shall be bound to exhibit, between sunset and sum 1st, a constant bright light at the m isthead, except within haiboins 01 othei places where regulations foi other lights for ships aie legally established " Held, that under this legulation every sailing vessel lying at anchor, either in the roadstead oi fairway of a stream, is bound to exhibit a bright light at the masthead, unless there be some local provision for a different desciiption of light to be borne by that class of vessels-The J8th section of the 14 eV 15 Viet i 79, enacts that, in case of a collision between two or more vessels, if it ippcars that sik h collision was occasioned by the non observance of the foregoing rules with lespect to the exhibiting of lights, the owrrei of the vessel by which any such rules has been infringed shall not be entitled to recover any recompense whatsoevet tor any damage sustained by such vessel in such collision, unless it appears to the Court before whuh the case is tried that the cncumstances of the case were such as to justify a departure from the lule -Where a vessel, through sheer negligence, rnjures another \essel by tunning hei down at night, the meie fact that the injured vessel was at the time guilty of an infringement of the Admualty iiilcs by not exhibiting a light affords no justification undei the preceding section, where the absence ot the light doe1- not in any way conti ibute to the accident [H C 11 L J Ex 2J3 ] Case The declaratron stated, that the plaintitt was possessed of a vessel at anchor In the Thames, that the defendants were1 possessed ot a steam vessel, of which they 1548 MORRISON V THE GENERAL 8TEAM NAVIGATION CO 8 EX 734. had the management by then servants, and that the defendants took such bad care of then vessel, that, through the carelessness of then .servants, it struck the plaintiff's vessel and damaged her Plea-not guilty, and issue thereon At the trial, before Pollock, C B, at the London Sittings after last Term, rt appeared that the action was bii.tight to recover damages toi an rrijuiy clone to the plaintiff's vessel, by reason of the defendants' ^eshel having lun into het At the time of tjie collision, the plaintiffs vessel, a collier, was lying at anchor in the rivei Thames in rra\ esend Reach, in the " fairway " of the r iver, and the defendants' vessel, a steam ship, was proceeding down the rrver orr her voyage to a foreign poit The place where the accident occui r ed is within the poi t of London, the t ight to r egulate the navigation of that place being by law vested in the Lord Mayor and Coipoiation of London, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaffney v Dublin United Tramways Company
...M. & W. 546. (2) 2 C. B. N. S. 740; 5 C. B. N. S. 573. (3) 5 E. & B. 195. (1) 5 E. & B. 195. (2) 2 C. B. N. S. 740; 5 C. B. N. S. 573. (3) 8 Ex. 733. (1) I. R. 4 C. L. 150. (2) Har. & Ruth., pp. 429, 430. (3) 2 C. B. N. 740; 5 C. B. N. S. 573. (4) 20 L. R. Ir. 409, at p. 417. (1) (1888) 24 ......
-
Tuff v Warman
...property (so placed) was a nuisance, is no excuse for running upon it negligently.] In Morrison v. The General Steam-Navigation Company, 8 Exch. 733, it was held, that, where a vessel through sheer negligence injures another vessel by running her down at night, the mere fact that the injure......
-
Doyle v Kinahan
...R. 393, 398. Luxford v. LargeENR 5 Car. & P. 421. Woolf v. BeardENR 8 Car. & P. 373. Morrison v. The General Steam Navigation CompanyENR 8 Exch. 733. Holden v. The Liverpool Navigation CompanyENR 3 C. B. 1. Smith v. Dodson 3 M. & Gr. 59. Thorogood v. BryanENR 8 C. B. 115, see pp. 117, 130. ......
-
Neenan v Hosford
...I. R. 472. (4) 28 L. R. Ir. 1. (1) [1916] 2 I. R. 472. (2) [1916] 1 A. C. 719. (3) 1 A. C. 754. (4) 20 L. R. Ir. 409, at pp. 418, 419. (1) 8 Ex. 733. (2) [1907] 13 Out. L. R. (3) [1916] 2 I. R. 472. (1) 9 A. C. 873, at p. 881. (2) 1 A. C. 754. (3) [1916] 2 I. R. 472. (1) [1907] 13 Out. L. R......