The Genua
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1936 |
| Date | 19 May 1936 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
Langton, J., assisted by Trinitty Masters
The Genua
The MetagamaUNK (29 Ll. L. Rep., pp. 76, 253)
City of LincolnELR 62 L. T. Rep. 49 15 Prob. Div. 15 109 L. T. Rep. 960 (1914) P. 72
The MellonaENR 3 Wm. Rob. 7
The PensherENR Swab. 211
The Flying FishENR (Br. & Lush. 436)
Collision near Beachy Head in fog Damaged vessel beached at Dover under harbour-master's directions Whether further damage by beaching consequence of collision
The Metagama (29 Ll. L. Rep., pp. 76, and 253, et seq. (II. L.), followed
50 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. Ct. of App]. THE; Genua. [Adm. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. April 27, 28 ; May 7 and 19, 1936. (Before Langton, J., assisted by Trinity Masters.) The Genua, (a) Collision near Beachy Head in fog - Damaged vessel beached at Dover under harbourmaster's directions - Whether further damage by beaching consequence of collision - Exercise of " ordinary nautical skill," the test - Apportionment of blame for collision : four-fifths and one-fifth - Measure of damages - Costs. This was a claim brought by the owners of the British steamship Grainton against the owners of the German steamship Genua for damages in respect of a collision between the two vessels which occurred, in foggy weather, on the evening of the 21st June, 1935, in the vicinity of Beachy Head. After the collision, the Grainton, which was badly holed, was taken to Dover with the help of a tug, and was there beached, to save her from sinking, at a spot opposite the Custom House, to which she was directed by the harbourmaster. She took the ground well, but afterwards became buckled and the plaintiffs included in their claim against the defendants the consequential damage sustained by the Grainton as the result of having to be beached. The plaintiffs' case was that the Grainton was proceeding up the Channel, on a voyage from Venice to the Tyne, in ballast. The weather had become foggy, and she was sounding fog signals. When those on board h??r heard long blasts from a vessel apparently some distance away and bearing on the port bow, the wheel of the Grainton was starboarded. Shortly afterwards the Genua came into sight about a quarter of a mile away on the port bow, and the wheel of the Grainton was again starboarded, but, as the Genua appeared to be shaping to cross the course of the Grainton at high speed, the Grainton's engines were ordered full astern, and her wheel was put hard-a-port. Immediately afterwards, the Genua struck the Grainton a very heavy blow on the port side, doing so much damage that the Grainton had to obtain salvage assistance and it became necessary to beach her, whereby the Grainton sustained further damage. The Grainton charged the Genua with negligently and improperly altering her course to port and failing to pass the Grainton portside to portside. The defendants alleged that the Genua, whilst proceeding down the Channel with engines working at half-speed, and sounding signals for fog, heard on her starboard bow the signal of the Grainton. The Genua stopped her engines and further signals were exchanged. (a) Reported by J. A. Petrie, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 51 Adm.] THE Genua. [Adm. Some time afterwards, the Grainton came into sight bearing on the Genua's starboard bow, and apparently about on a parallel course to that of the Genua and in a position to pass the Genua starboard to starboard. The Grainton was then observed to swing suddenly to starboard, whereupon the engines of the Genua were put full speed astern and her wheel hard-a-starboard, but the Grainton, coming on at high speed, with her port side struck the stem and port bow of the Genua, doing damage, for which the defendants counterclaimed. As to the damage sustained by the Grainton through beaching, the defendants denied that it was a consequence of the collision, or that it was unavoidable. It was contended at the hearing that the Grainton had been beached in an improper place. Held, that, although the Genua's negligence in two or three respects had contributed to the collision, as that vessel was, however, not proceeding at full speed in the fog and did not fail to stop her engines on hearing the signal of the Grainton, Iter navigation was certainly much less blameworthy than that of the Grainton, which " did nearly everything wrong," and that, accordingly, the blame would be appor-tioned as to four-fifths on the Grainton and one-fifth on the Genua, the costs (except as mentioned below) to follow the proportions of blame. Held, further, as to the consequential damage, on the authority of The Metagama (20 Ll. L. Rep., pp. 76, 253), that, the Elder Brethren's advice being that there was no lack of ordinary nautical skill on the part of those in charge of the Grainton in beaching her where they did, the plaintiffs succeeded on that point, and were entitled to have the costs of that issue. The Metagama (29 LI. L. Rep., pp. 76 and 253, et seq. (II. L.), followed. Damage by collision and subsequent beaching. The plaintiffs were Messrs. K. Chapman and Son, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, owners of the steamship Grainton (6341 tons gross). The defendants were the owners of the steamship Genua (1980 tons gross), of Hamburg. The plaintiffs claimed damages against the defendants in respect of a collision which occurred between the Grainton and the Genua, in the English Channel on the evening of the 21st June, 1035, in foggy weather, and, further, in respect of damage sustained by the Grainton as a result of having had to be beached in consequence of the said collision. The defendants, in their defence, alleged that the collision was due to the negligence of the plaintiffs, and they counterclaimed for the damage sustained by the Genua. They denied that the damage sustained by the Grainton through beaching was a consequence of the collision. The facts as found by the learned judge and the contentions of counsel appear fully from the reserved judgment, which was delivered on the 19th May. Upon the question of liability for consequential damage, his Lordship dealt at considerable length with the opinions of Lords Haldane, Dunedin, and Shaw, as to what they regarded as being the established law on the subject, in the case of The Metagama (29 LI. L. Rep., at p. 253, et seq.). K. S. Carpmael, K.C. and H. L. Holman, for the plaintiffs. R. F. Hayward, K.C. and H. G. Willmer, for the defendants. Langton, J. - This is a case of a collision in fog between an English and a German steamship, and the case has been of some importance by raising very clearly a point as to consequential loss by stranding. Mr. Carpmael, the leading counsel for the plaintiffs, has put at my disposal the very clear statements of the law on this matter to be found in the case of The Metagama (29 LI. L. Rep. 70, 253), which have not, I think, received the attention in this country that they clearly merit. As I have founded my judgment upon the law as stated in that case in the House of Lords, I will refer later to the case in some detail. Dealing with the major issues in the case they concern the responsibility for a collision in fog. The collision happened off Beachy Head, and if it were necessary to find the place of collision with precision I should prefer the defendants' place to the plaintiffs'. Throughout this case their evidence was far more accurate, and their navigation was certainly less blameworthy than that of the plaintiffs. Therefore, if it became necessary to find the accuracy of the one or the other, the German place would commend itself to me rather than the English. The English vessel, a vessel called the Grainton, is a large steamer of 0341 tons gross and 423ft. long. She was on a voyage from Venice to the Tyne, in ballast, and was proceeding up Channel on a course of 82 deg. true. The German vessel, the Genua, was a much smaller vessel of 1980 tons gross and 200ft. long, and was on a voyage to Cartagena, bound down Channel on a course of S. 60 deg. W. true. This course was attacked by counsel for the plaintiffs., but if established it means that the original courses were converging at an angle of 16 deg. In order to meet the general convenience, the evidence of the German ship's witnesses was taken first, and such witnesses as it was thought necessary or prudent to call on behalf of the British ship were taken subsequently. On the main issue - namely, the navigation of the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial