Seward v Owners of The Vera Cruz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1884 |
| Date | 18 April 1884 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Butt, J.
The Vera Cruz
Butterfield v. ForresterENR 11 East, 60
Bridge v. The Grand Junction Railway CompanyENR 3 M. & W. 246
Davies v. MannENR 10 M. & W. 548
Dowell v. The General Steam Naviyation Company 5 Ell. & B. 206
Order In Council Consolidating Orders In Council Making Regulations For Preventing Collisions At Sea And Rules As To Signals Of Distress, SI 1910/1113.
The Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 512
The Merchant Shipping Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 17.
Collision Both ships to blame Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93)
254 MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE VERA CRUZ. [ADM. March 10,11,18. and April 18,1884. (Before Butt, J.) The Vera Cruz, (a) Collision - Both ships to blame - Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93) - Board of Trade - -Contributory negligence - Breach of Regulations for preventing collisions - Division of damages - The Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict, c. 104), s. 512 - The Merchant Shipping Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 17. Sect. 512 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, disentitling a party to bring an action to recover damages for loss of life or personal injury earned by a collision, unless the Board of Trade has competed or refused to institute an inquiry into the disaster, does not apply to foreign ships. Sect. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, providing that in cases of collision a ship which has infringed any of the Regulations for preventing collisions, contained in or made under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1854 to 1873, shall be deemed to be in fault unless the circumstances of the case made departure from the regulations necessary, is applicable to the case of a master whose ship has infringed such regulations, so that in an action under Lord Campbell's Act, to recover damages resulting from the death of the master, he will be deemed to be in fault for a breach of the regulations, and therefore guilty of contributory negligence, so as to affect the plaintiff's right of recovery. The ships A. and V. C. came into collision, for which both were found to blame, the A. for breach of the statutory regulations for preventing collisions referred to in sect. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, the V. C. for improper navigation. The master of the A. was drowned. Sis personal representative trought an action in rem under Lord Campbell's Act against the owner of the V. C. to recover damages for his loss. Held, that though the deceased was deemed to have been guilty of contributory negligence by reason of the breach of the regulations, the Admiralty Court rule as to the division of damages was applicable, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover half the damages sustained by the loss of the deceased. This was an action in rem brought under the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act by Mary Seward, the widow and administratrix of William Seward, deceased, late master of the British schooner Agnes, against the owners of the Spanish steamship Vera Cruz, to recover compensation for the injury sustained by the plaintiff by reason of William Seward's death, which was occasioned by a collision between the Agnes and the Vera Cruz on waters within Her Majesty's dominions. The collision took place in the Crosby Channel near the entrance to the river Mersey between the Crosby (a) Eeported by J. P. Aspinall, and P. W. RAIKES, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 255 ADM.] THE VERA CRUZ. [ADM. and Formby Lightships on the night of the 12th Aug. 1882; and by reason of the collision the Agnes was sank and her master and some of her crew and passengers were drowned. Another action in rem had been brought against the Vera Oruz by the owners of the Agnes to recover damages for the loss of the Agnes. In this last-mentioned action the Court had found both ships to blame, the Vera Cruz for negligent and improper navigation, the Agnes (which was at anchor at the time of the collision) for a breach of 37 & 33 Vict. c. 52, s. 1 (An Act to make Regulations for Preventing Collisions in the Sea Channels leading to the river Mersey), in nob having the after light of her two anchor lights at double the height of the other, (a) At the hearing of the last-mentioned action it was arranged that the evidence taken should be received as evidence in the life action. The defendant had filed a petition on protest against the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action. On the petition coming on for hearing, the learned judge being bound by the decision in The Franeonia (3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 435; 36 L. T. Rep. N. 640; 2 P. Div. 163) dismissed it. (6) The plaintiff's solicitors had failed to give notice to the Board of Trade of her intention to bring her action as required by sect. 512 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, which is as follows: In cases where loss of life or personal injury has occurred by any accident in reapect of which the owner of any such ship as aforesaid is or is alleged to be liable in damages, no person shall be entitled to bring any action, or institute any suit or other legal proceeding in the United Kingdom, until the completion of the inquiry (if any) instituted by the Board of Trade, or until the Board of Trade has refused to institute the same; and the Board of Trade shall for the purpose of entitling any person to bring an action or institute a suit or other legal proceeding be deemed to have refused to institute such inquiry whenever notice has been served on it by any person of his desire to bring such action or institute such suit or other legal proceeding, and no inquiry is instituted by the Board of Trade in respect of the subject-matter of such intended action, suit, or proceeding for the space of one month after the service of such notice. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C. and French for the plaintiff. - With regard to sect. 512 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, it is submitted that its application is confined to British ships, and that therefore, it would not apply to the Vera Cruz, which is a Spanish ship. The section speaks of the inquiry being hold in respect of " any such ship as aforesaid." To ascertain the meaning of these words, it is necessary to refer to sects. 503 and 504, which are repealed sections allowing shipowners to limit their liability. It has been decided that these sections only apply to British ships: The Wild Ranger, Lush. 553; Cope v. Doherty, 4 K.& J. 367; 27 L. J. 600, Ch. Therefore "any such ship as aforesaid" is a Britich ship. True it is that the Merchant Shipping Act 1862 extends limitation of liability to foreign ships, and that it is thereby enacted that that Act " shall be construed with and as part of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854." But this does not prove that the Legislature in 1862 meant in extending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Admiralty Commissioners v S.S. Amerika
...95 L. T. Rep. 435 (1906) 2 K. B. 648 Jackson v. Watson and SonsELR 100 L. T. Rep. 799 (1909) 2 K. B. 193 The Vera CruzDID=ASPM 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 254 9 P. Div. 96 Dunham v. ClareELR 81 L. T. Rep. 751 (1902) 2 K. B. 296 Simpson v. ThomsonELR 3 App. Cas., at p. 289 Collision Warship Value o......
-
Owners of Cargo of Steamship Tongariro v Astral Shipping Company
...2 Dods. 83 The City of ManchesterDID=ASPM 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 106 (1879) 42 L. T. Rep. 521 5 P. Div. 221 The Vera CrusDID=ASPM 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 254 (1884) 51 L. T Rep. 24 9 P. Div. 88 The Englishman and AustraliaDID=ASPMELR 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 603 70 L. T. Rep. 846 (1894) P. 239 The F......
-
Seward v Owners of The Vera Cruz
...in The Franconia (2 P. Div. 163; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 435; 36 L. T. Rep. N.8. 640), and decided in ovonr of the jurisdiction (see 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 254; 51 L. T. Bop. N. S. 24). This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, as above mentioned, that court holding that they were not b......
-
The Circe
...Law Cas. 257, 75 13 App. Cas. 1 12 P. D. 58 The MilanENR 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 185 Lush. 388 The Vera CruzDID=ASPM 51 L.T. Rep. 104 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 254 9 P. Div. 96 52 L.T. Rep. 474 10App. Cas. 59 Spanish Accidents Act 1900 Collision Both to blame Seaman drowned MARITIME LAW CASES. 149......