The "Druid"
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1842 |
| Date | 25 April 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 166 E.R. 619
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
S. C. 1 Notes of Cas 444, 6 Jur 441. Distinguished, the "Seine," 1859, Swab. 411. Not applied, The "Charkeh," 1873, L R 4 Ad & Ecc 97 Distinguished, The "Lennington," 1874, 32 L P 72, 23 W R 421, 2 Asp M C 475. Observa-tions adopted, The "Leon," 1881, 6 P D 150 Referred to, The "Tasmania," 1888, 13 P. D. 115; Morgan v Castlegate Steamshrp Co, [1893] A C 38. Con-sidered, The "Ripon City," [1897] P 226
tke " druid "-(Newton) April 25, 1842 -Owners are not responsible for damage wilfully committed by a master in their employ, the acts of such master not being within the scope of his ordinary duties nor otherwise directed or subsequently sanctioned by them, * [S. C. 1 Notes of Gas 444 , 6 Jur 441. Distinguished, The " Setne," 1859, Swab. 411. Not applied, The " Charkieh," 1873, L K 4 Ad & Ecc 97 Distinguished, The " Lenntnyton" 1874, 32 L P 72 , 23 W R 421, 2 Asp M C 475. Observations adopted, The " Leon," 1881, 6 P D 150 Referred to, The " Tasniama" 1888, 13 P. D. 115; Moryan v Ca&tlegate Steamship Co , [1893] A C 38. Considered, The " Ripon City," [1897J P 226 ] This was a case of damage by collision promoted by the owner of the Danish sloop the " Sophie " against the steam-vessel the " Druid " The act on petition in substance set forth- That on the 12th of October L84], the sloop " Sophie," of the burden of 73 tons, amd efficiently manned with a licensed pilot on board, had proceeded down the river Mersey as far as Bootle Bay, and nearly opposite the Rock lighthouse, when the " Druid," belonging to a Steam Tug Company in Liverpool, ran several times violently into her on the larboard quarter, thereby starting her bulwarks, and causing her to slew round and drive violently against a barque then under sail to leeward of her ; the master ot the steam-tug at the same time demanding £5 of the mastei of the sloop on pretence that it was due for towing the sloop into Liver- 620 THE " DRUID " 1 W. HOB. 392 pool, and threatening that unless it was paid he would run the sloop's mast and bowsprit overboard. That the demand not being complied with, the master of the same immediately passed one of the hawsers round the shrouds of the sloop, and declared that she should not go to sea till it was paid That [392] the sloop soon after got clear of the steamer by cutting the hawser aforesaid , but I N , the master of the sfceam-tug, almost immediately again ran the steamer with great violence into the sloop, and passed a chain round the foremast shroud, by which he dragged the sloop with great force up and down the river, causing her to slew round in all directions and severely straining her rigging and upper works That the sloop was so dragged about for a considerable time, and until she came into shoal water That the pilot then called upon the master of the steamer to tow the sloop into deep water, which he accordingly did, but that it was then more than two hours' ebb, and impossible for the sloop to proceed on her voyage That the sloop having been taken to the Magazines, was there brought to anchor. That during the night of the 12th the wind blew a heavy gale from the north-west, and continued to blow violently from the west until the 15th of the said month of October, when an attempt was made to get her into dock, but which was ineffectual, all the docks being at that time full That on the 16th the sloop was driven off Seacombe, where at low water she struck the ground, and thereb} sustained considerable damage That during the night the wind increasing almost to a hurricane, the sloop drove with the larboard side athwart the lee bow of a large Liverpool ship and became entangled with the eathead and bower anchor, whereby the larboaid side and bowsprit of the sloop were severely injured That the strength of the tide forcing the sloop almost on her beam ends, she again struck with violence against the [393] said ship, and the crew being apprehensive that she would sink, made the best of their way on board the ship. That when the flood-tide began to decrease the sloop righted again, and the crew returned to her, and by great exertions and at considerable risk they succeeded in carrying her into the Princess Dock Basin, on the 18th of the said month of October That on the following day a survey was held upon her, when it was found that all her seams were so much strained and open that it would be necessary to discharge her cargo in order to undergo the repairs requisite to enable her to prosecute her voyage That in unloading the cargo it was found that there was a deficiency of 16 tons of the salt on board, such deficiency having been occasioned by melting and leakage in consequence of the circumstances aforesaid. Wherefore, &c. The reply of the owners of the steam-tug denied that any directions or any authority had ever been given by the directors of the company or any of them, to the manager or to any ot their captains or servants, to detain or attempt to stop or in any way molest vessels under the circumstances stated in the act on petition It also expressly denied that any directions or authority had been either directly or indirectly given to I N , the master of the " Druid," to detain or molest the sloop " Sophie,1' or that the acts alleged to have been committed by him were ever authorised, or that they were or have since been in any manner sanctioned by any or either of the directors of the said company on the contrary, they have been highly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Father Thames, The (Father Themes, The Office)
-
The Ripon City
...273 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 234 5 P. Div. 197 The UtopiaDID=ASPM 70 L. T. Rep. 47 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 408 (1893) A. C. 492 The DruidENR 1 W. Rob. 391 The LemingtonDID=ASPM 32 L. T. Rep. 69 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 475 The Tasmania 59 L. T. Rep. 263 6 Asp. Mar. Law. Cas. 305 13 P. Div. 110 The Ori......
-
The Clan Gordon
...to render owners liable for the "wilful" misconduct of their servants, for which, without it, they would not be so liable: The Druid, 1 W.Rob. 391; The Ida, Lush 4; 1 L. T. Rep. N. S. 417. The irresponsibility of an owner where a pilot is employed by compulsion of law exists in the common l......
-
Atlas Baltic OÜ v The Owners and all Persons Claiming an Interest in the Lady Magda
... ... It was argued that the case of lien for damages by collision furnishes another exception to the general rule, and there are decisions and dicta which point in that direction; but these authorities are hardly reconcilable with the judgment of Dr. Lushington in the Druid (1842) 1 Wm. Rob. 391, with the law laid down by the Appeal Court in the Parlement Belge, where the present Master of the Rolls with the assent of James and Baggallay, stated: “in a claim made in respect of a collision the property is not ... ...
-
To what extent can unmanned ships comply with COLREGs 1972 and how will the liability of such vessels be assessed?
...s.313. 203 Veal and Tsimplis (n 9) 317. 204 ibid 317-318, van Hooydonk (n 3) 413 and CMI Position Paper (n 35) 19. 205 See: The Druid (1842) 1 W Rob 391. However, proving that a master was constituting ‘a frolic of their own’ is extremely difficult and rare. Whether this decision can be reg......
-
List of cases
...v Stevenson (1932) AC 562Dougherty Gause v R W Bullard 16 La Ann 107 (1861)Drinkwater v The Spartan 7 F Cas 1085 (1828)Druid, The (1842) 166 ER 619Duncan v M’Calmont (1841) 49 Eng Rep 161Dupleix, The [1912] P 8Dutchess, The 15 F 198 (1926)Eastern Star, The 8 Fed Cas 268 (1830)Effjohn Inter ......
-
The early English Admiralty Court and the conceptualisation of the maritime lien : an historical conspectus
...1842, the reports indicate that no lien existed for collision damages − see, for example, The Volent (1842) 1 W Rob 383, and The Druid (1842) 166 ER 619.228 Marsden, Vol I, op cit n 36, at LXLX.229 Steckley (Collisions), op cit n 176, at 195for the claim automatically had to be met by way o......