Owners, Master, and Crew of the Lightshsip Comet v Owners of Hopper Barge WH (No. 1)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1910 |
| Date | 13 December 1910 |
| Court | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn) Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, Shaw, and Robson with Nautical Assessors.
Owners, Master, and Crew of the Lightshsip Comet v. Owners of Hopper Barge W. H. No. 1
Collision — Tug and tow — Negligence of tug
Judgment of the court below affirmed, Lord Robson dissenting.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 497 ADM.] OWNEWS ,&C., OF LIGHTSHIP COMET V.OWNERS OF HOPPER W.H.NO.1. [H. of L. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, Dec. 13,1910. (Before the Lord chancellor (Loreburn) L?? Machaghteh, Atkinson, Shaw, and Robson '??rifcu Nautical Assessors.) OWNERS, MASTER. AND CREW OF THE LIGHT SHIP COMET V. OWNERS OF HOPPER BARGE W. H. No. 1. (a) OH APPEAL. FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ENGLAND. Collision-Tug and tow-Negligence of tug- Liability of tow. A barge, with a rudder but no motive power, collided, while in tow of a tug, with a lightship in a narrow channel.. In the Admiralty Court (a) Reported by C. E. MALDREN ,Esq,. Barrister -at law. 498 MARITIME LAW CASES. H. oF. L.] OWNERS,&C.,OF LIGHTSHIP COMET V.OWNERS OF HOPPER BARGN W.H.NO.1. [H. oF. L. both tug and tow were held to blame . The Court . of Appeal reverted that finding, and pronounced the tug alone to blame for not keeping a proper courts. There was evidence that the barge might have avoided the collision by altering her helm soontr than she in fact did. Held, that though it it the duty of a tow to do her beet under all circumstances to avoid collision, yet in this case the barge was not to blime for the collision, at those on board were entitled to assume that the tug would set a proper course, and would not act in a negligent manner. Judgment of the court below offirmed, Lord Robton dissenting. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, consisting of the Earl of Halsbury, Fletcher Moulton, and Far well, L.JJ. with Nautical Assessors, who had varied a judgment of the President of the Admiralty Division (Sir J. Bigham), with Nautical Assessors, by which he found the tug Knight Errant and the hopper barge W. H. No. 1 both to blame for a collision which took place between the barge, while she was in tow of the tug, and the Comet, a lightship in the Crosby Channel of the river Mersey. The case is reported 11 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 407; 102 L. T. Rep. 643; (1910) P. 199. The Court of Appeal found the tug alone to blame. The owners of the lightship appealed. Bailhache, K.C. and Bateson, K.C., for the appellants, argued that the tug went wrong by keeping too much over to the starboard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Devonshire
...Gate Steamship CompanyDID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 284 (1892) 68 L. T. Rep. 99 (1893) A. C. 38 The Knight ErrantDID=ASPMELRELR 11 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 497 (1910) 102 L.T. Rep. 643 (1910) P. 199 103 L. T. Rep. 677 (1911) A.C. 30 The Drumlanrig 11 Asp. Mar. Law. Cas. 451 (1910) 103 L. T. Rep. ......