Reischer v Borwick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1894 |
| Date | 02 July 1894 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Insurance (Marine) - Collision - Proximate Cause of Loss of Ship - Injury - Concurrent Cause - Towage.
A ship was insured against damage from collision with any object, but not against perils of the sea. The ship ran against a snag in a river, and, the collision causing a leak, the ship was anchored and the leak temporarily repaired, so that the ship was out of immediate danger. A tug was gent to tow the ship to the nearest dock for repairs; but the effect of the motion through the water was that the leak was opened again, and the ship began to sink, and was run aground and abandoned: —
Held, that inasmuch as the injury to the ship remained throughout, the collision was the proximate cause of the damage, and that the loss of the ship was covered by the policy.
APPEAL from a judgment of Kennedy, J.
The plaintiff was the owner of the paddle-wheel steam-tug Rosa, which was insured by the defendants. The insurance was expressed in the policy to be, “Only against the risk of collision (as per clause attached), and damage received in collision with any object, including ice.” The clause attached related to collision with other vessels; the policy did not include “perils of the sea.”
During the currency of the policy the Rosa was engaged in a trip on the Danube. In the course of her voyage, on March 4, 1892, she came into collision with a floating snag, which first struck the bottom of the ship, and then fouled the port paddle-wheel and caused considerable damage to the machinery of the ship. Among other things, the cover of the condenser was broken, and a hole made in it about twenty square inches in area. The water poured in through the ejection pipes into the condenser, and thence through the hole in the cover into the ship. The captain anchored the ship, and set the pumps to work. He also succeeded in plugging the ejection pipes with wooden plugs; and so long as the ship was at anchor the water was thus prevented from entering the vessel to any dangerous extent. The captain then applied for assistance, and on March 6 a tug was sent to tow the Rosa to the nearest dock for repairs. The tug commenced to tow the Rosa on the same evening; but on the morning of March 7, while she was being towed, the water poured in rapidly through the hole in the cover of the condenser, and it was found that the plug in the port ejection pipe had fallen out and the ship was in danger of sinking. The towing was stopped, but the captain was unable to stay the rush of water through the ejection pipe, and, in order to save the lives of the crew, gave orders to the tug to tow the Rosa ashore. This was done, and she was grounded on the south bank of the river, where she was abandoned by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed damages for the total loss of the vessel. The defendants paid into Court 37l. 10s. to cover the damage caused by the collision with the snag up to the time when the vessel was taken in tow by the tug, but denied any liability for the subsequent damage, contending that the proximate cause of that damage was not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leyland Shipping Company v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Company
...and Scrutton, L.JJ. Leyland Shipping Company Limited v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited Reischer v. BorwickDID=ASPMELR 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 493 71 L. T. Rep. 238 (1894) 2 Q. B. 550 Pink v. FlemingDID=ASPMELR 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 554 63 L. T. Rep. 413 25 Q. B. Div. 396 Grill v. ......
- Leyland Shipping Company, Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society, Ltd
- The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others & Other Appeals
-
Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd
...firm)WLR [1982] 1 WLR 1297. Polemis, ReELR [1921] 3 KB 560. Quinn v Birch Bros (Builders) LtdELR [1966] 2 QB 370. Reischer v BorwickELR [1894] 2 QB 548. Rio Claro, TheUNK [1987] 2 Ll Rep 173. Robinson v HarmanENR (1848) 1 Exch 850. Royal Greek Government v Minister of TransportUNK (1950) 83......
-
A New Approach to Causation? The UK’s Supreme Court Hands Down Judgment in the Business Interruption Insurance Test Case
...reminded us, can remain so even when intervening events appear to have directly caused the loss. For instance, in Reischer v Borwick [1894] 2 QB 548, a ship collided with an object floating in a river, which caused a leak. After a temporary repair, a tug was sent to tow the ship to the near......