The Gustafsberg
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1904 |
| Date | 24 November 1904 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Gorell Barnes, J.
The Gustafsberg
The CorennieELR (1894) P. 338
The MinnieDID=ASPMELR 71 L. T. Rep. 715 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 521 (1894) P. 338
The OportoDID=ASPMELR 75 L. T. Rep. 599 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 213 (1897) P. 249
Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea 1897, art. 25.
Collision Narrow channel Starboard-hand buoys in open waters
MARITIME LAW CASES. 61 K.B. DIV.] THE GUSTAFSBERG. [ADM. PROBATE, DI, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. Nov. 22,23, and 24,1904. 4 (Before GORELL Baenes, J.) ThE Gustafsbeeo. (a) Collision - 'Narrow channel - Starboard-hand buoys in open waters - Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Set 1897, art. 25. The steamship R. proceeding up Sea Beach, river Thames, on the starboard hand side of that portion of the river which lies to the south ward of the four red conical lighted buoys placed in Sea Beach to mark the northen side of the deepest water in the channel, came into collision with the G., which was proceeding down Sea Beach. The four red conical lighted buoys were nearly in the central line of the reach, and there were other buoys nearer the northern and southern banks of the reach marking the limits of the navigable water. The owners of the Q. Contended that as the R. was to the sruth of the central line of the sketch of water between the buoys marking the northern and southern limits of the navigable water she had infringed art. 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and was to blame for the collision. Held, that although physical conditions remained the same an alteration in lights or marks which affected the usual way of navigating a particular stretch of water may make a portion of that stretch a narrow channel because of the convenience which the, lights or marks give for the purpose of navigation, and that the four red conical buoys being by their form and colour starboard hand buoys the R. was right in treating that portion of the reach which lay between them and the buoys marking the southern limits of the navigable water as a narrow channel within the meaning of art. 25 of the regulations. Action of damage by collision. The plaintiffs were the Societe Anonyme John Cockerill, the owners of the steamship Rubis, of Antwerp. The defendants were the owners of the Swedish steamship Gustafsberg. The case is reported on the question of the effect produced by the placing of lights or marks in open waters by the properly constituted authority for the convenience of navigation with reference to art. 25 of the collision regulations. The collision occurred about 10 p.m. on the 3rd Aug. 1904, in Sea Reach of the river Thames, above No. 2 and below No. 3 red conical lighted buoy and to the south of the line made by them, and on the starboard hand of the channel, which lies between the Nore sand buoys and the red conical lighted buoys; the wind was a light breeze from the east-south-east, the weather was fine and clear, and the tide ebb of the force of about two knots. The case made by the plaintiffs was that the Rubis, a twin screw steamship of the port of Antwerp of 633 tons gross register, manned by a crew of sixteen hands all told, was in Sea Reach on a voyage from Ostend to Tilbury with a general cargo and one passenger. (a) Reported by L. F. 0. Dabby, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 62 ADM.] THE GUSTAFSBERG [ADM. The Rubis was making about twelve knots an hour over the ground with her engines working full speed, and was proceeding upon the star-board side of the channel which lies between the red conical gas-lighted buoys and the Nore sand buoys on a course of N.W. by W. J W. magnetic Her regulation lights, including a second mast-head head light and stern light, were being duly exhibited and were burning brightly, and a good look out was being kept onboard of her. In these circumstances the two masthead lights and green lights of the Gustafsberg were seen one and a half to two miles off bearing a little on the port bow. The Rubis proceeded on the same course and at; the same speed, and the masthead and green lights of the Gustafsberg gradually drew ahead of the Rubis and then on to her starboard bow, and just after this the Rubis, having arrived off the No. 2 buoy, the vessels being then starboard to starboard, the helm of the Rubis was starboarded to get on a W.N.W. course parallel with the line of No. 2 and No. 3 buoys, and two short blasts were at the same time sounded on her whistle. The Rubis was directly afterwards steadied on a W.N.W. course. The Gustafsberg continued to approach green to green for a short time broadening on the star-board bow, but as she got nearer she suddenly opened her red light on the starboard bow of the Rubis, and sounded one short blast on her whistle. The engines of the Rubis were immediately stopped and put full speed astern, and three short blasts were sounded on her whistle, but the Gustafsberg came on at great speed, shutting in her green light, and three short blasts were again sounded on the whistle of the Rubis, but shortly afterwards the Gustafsberg with her port side about amidships struck the stem of the Rubis. The plaintiffs charged the defendants with improperly porting, with failing to slacken speed, or stop or reverse their engines, and with neglecting to keep on the starboard hand side of the channel. The defendants' case was that the Gustafsberg, a Swedish screw steamship of 1155 tons gross register, manned by a crew of twenty hands all told, with a coasting pilot on board, was on a voyage from the Surrey Commercial Dock to Blyth in ballast. The Gustafsberg was proceeding down on the south side of mid-channel, having shortly before passed well to the southward of No. 4 occulting gas buoy, and was heading about east-south-east by compass, and making about eight nine knots through the water. Her regulation lights were being duly exhibited and were training brightly and a good lookout was being kept on board her. In these circumstances those on board the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aktieselskabet Dampskibet Forto v Orkney Harbour Commissioners
...of the Clyde LighthousesSC, 11 R. 531; Owners of the s.s. Toward v. Owners of the s. Turkistan, (1885) 13 R. 342; The Gustafsberg,ELR [1905] P. 10; The Christabel, Maritime Notes and Queries, (1878) iv. they failed. They knew very well that the shoal was a danger. In 1906, the fish-curers, ......
-
Kulemesin Yuriy And Another v Hksar
...be astonishing if it were otherwise. There are cases in the materials before the Court where that was the position, namely The Gustafsberg [1905] P 10, The La Bretagne (1910) 179 F, 286, The Toluca [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 548 and The Devotion and The Polydinamos [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 464. In th......
-
Kulemesin Yuriy And Another v Hksar
...be astonishing if it were otherwise. There are cases in the materials before the Court where that was the position, namely The Gustafsberg [1905] P 10, The La Bretagne (1910) 179 F, 286, The Toluca [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 548 and The Devotion and The Polydinamos [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 464. In th......
-
Kulemesin Yuriy And Another v Hksar
...be astonishing if it were otherwise. There are cases in the materials before the Court where that was the position, namely The Gustafsberg [1905] P 10, The La Bretagne (1910) 179 F, 286, The Toluca [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 548 and The Devotion and The Polydinamos [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 464. In th......
-
Ruminations
...of the Lord knows what." "Cannon on Lacombe Charges; the Speaker Thinks it a Case of 'Cuss the Court.'" New York Tribune, January 26, 1905, p. 10. George Warvelle's Essays in Legal Ethics from 1903 includes this paragraph: There is another form of criticism, often resorted to but of questio......
-
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF INTENTIONS? THE ROSALIND BIRNIE PHILIP GIFT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW BEFORE A HORIZON OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FROM TURNER TO BARNES.
...a pris l'initiative de la presente Exposition", Exposition des ceuvres de James McNeill Whistler (Palais de l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts, 1905), p. 10. The catalogue stated (ibid, at p. 2) that all paintings, watercolours and pastels "sans indication d'origine appartiennent a la Succession de Jam......
-
Public Finance in Ancient India
...industries, (8) miscellaneous collec- theory of public domain, Aghnides, pp. 500-521. tions like port dues, etc. 58 Indian Antiquary 1905, p. 10; Law, the ruling that lands could be sold by Gardens were assessed at the same cultivators only to cultivators, and rates as cultivated lands. An ......