The Hazelmere
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1910 |
| Date | 17 November 1910 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Lord Alverstone, C.J., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ., and Assessors
The Hazelmere
Applicability of collision regulations
Collision Regulations 1897, arts. 21, 23, 27.
Collision Duty of steam vessel approaching harbour entrance Duty of steam vessel leaving harbour entrance
536 MARITIME LAW CASES. CT. OF APP.] THE HAESLMERN. [CT. OF APP. Nov. 2 and 17,1910. (Before Lord ALVRSTONE, C.J. BUCKLSY and KENNEDY, L.JJ., and Assessors.) THE HAZELMERE (a) Collision-Duty of steam vessel approaching harbour entrance-Duty of steam vessel leaving harbour entrance Applicability of collision regulations- Crossing rule-Collision Regulations 1887 arts 21, 23,27. Where a vessel was proceeding across Barry Dock entrance at such a distance as seriously to impede the exit of a vessel coming out and instead of beeping her course and speed reversed her engines so as practically to ? the exit for outward going vessels, the Court of Appeal (Lord Alverstone, CJ. and Kennedy, L.J., Buckley, LJ. dissenting) held that a vessel coming out of the dock entrance was justified in not obeying art. 23 and in not reversing earlier than she did, owing to the nature of the locality in which she was navigating and to the special circumstances, and having regard to the terms of art. 27. Quatre, whether the Collision Regulations apply to a vessel leaving Barry Dock in such circumstances. APPEAL from a decision of Bargrave Deane, J. by which he found the steam vessel Refugio alone to blame for a colliaion which occurred between that vessel and the steam vessel Hasel mers about 5.45 a.m. on the 28th Kay 1910 off the western breakwater at the entrance of Barry Harbour. The case made by the appellants (plaintiffs in the court below) was that shortly before 5.45 a.m. on the 28th May 1910 the Refugio, a steel screw steamship of 2642 tons gross and 1678 tons net register, manned by a crew of twenty.two hands all told had arrived from Rotterdam in Barry Roads, Bristol Channel, where she was to receive orders for a port of loading. The wind was about W.N.W. a light breeze, the weather was fine and dear, and the tide half-flood of the force of about two knots. The Refugio, in water ballast and in charge of a duly lioenaed Bristol Channel pilot, after passing the signal station on Nells Point, steered E. by N. I N. along the land, and three or tour timee sounded a long blast on her whistle to attract the attention of the boatmen by whom it was expected orders would be sent her. A good look out was being kept on board her. In these circumstances and when drawing up towards the Barry Dock entrance those on board the Refugio observed over the western breakwater and distant about a third of a mile the masts and funnel of the Haselmere which bore about fire points on the port bow. The Refugio was kept on her conrse until the Haselmere, as she was passing out of the entrance between the break water, sounded two short blasts and was seen to be acting as if under starboard helm, thereby causing danger of collision. The helm of the Refugio was thereupon put hard-a-port, one short blast was sounded on her whistle, and her engines were put full speed astern as the best means of avoiding collision. The Haselmere, which repeated her signal of two abort blasts was then seen suddenly to swing to starboard as it under hard-a-port helm. The engines of the Refugio were imme diately put full speed ahead and her helm hard-a-starboard in the hope of throwing her quarter clear and as the best means of reducing the (a) Reported by L.F. C. DARRY, REP Barrister -at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 537 CT. OF APP.] THE HAESLMERN. [CT. OF APP. blow but the Haselmere, although loudly hailed to go astern came on at great speed and with her stem struck the port side of the Refugio just abaft amidships doing her serious damage. Those on the Refugio charged those on the Haselmere with not keeping a good look-out; with neglecting to pase port to port; with neglecting to keep out of the way; with attempting to crose ahead of the Refugio; with not easing, atopping, or reverting their engines; with improperly star-boarding ; with after wards improperly porting: with neglecting to keep on her starboard-hand aide of the channel; and with neglecting to sound whistle signals. The case made by the respondents (defendants and counter-claimants in the court below) was that shortly before 5.60 a.m. on the 28th May 1910 the Haselmere, an iron steamship of 722 tone net register, manned by a crew of aixteen hands all told was proceeding in the course of a voyage from Barry Dock to Birkenhead laden with a cargo of coal. The wind was light, variable, the weather fine and clear, and the tide flood of the force of about three to four knots. The Haselmere was on a course out from Lady Windsor Look, Barry, to go out of the entrance making about three to four knots. A good look, out was being kept on board her. In these circunstances those on board the Haselmere observed the masts and funnel of the Refugio over the breakwater about three cables distant and about three or four points on the starboard bow. The Hasslmere had already given long warning blast when coming through the look, which the repeated when the Refugio's masts and funnel were seen. The Haselmere was proceeding out in the usual way, and as soon as she was able to do so without danger from the breakwater, her helm was put hard-a-port, and one short blast was sounded on her whistle, and afterwards her engines were reversed fuil speed astern, bat the Refugio, instead of keening her course and speed and not obstructing the entrance kept in the way and with her port aide struck the stem and port bow of the Haselmere, doing damage Those on the Haselmere charged those on the Refugio with not keeping a good look out with failing to keep their course and speed; with failing to keep clear of the entrance with failing to inornate their course by whistle signal: with failing to keep to the starboard hand aide of the channel; and with failing to ease otop, and reverse their engines ana counter-claimed for the damage they had sustained. The following Collision Regulations 1897 were referred to during the course of the ease :- 19. When two steam vassals are crossing, so as to involve risk of collsion, the vassal which has the other on her own starboard aide shall keep oat of the way of the other. 21. Where by any of these rules one of two resells is to keep out of the Way, the other shall keep her course and speed. Note When, fa conseq ? ? ce of thick weather or other assets, such vessel finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of giving-way vassel alone, she also shall take such action as will best aid to avert collision. 22 Every vassal which is directed by these rules to keep out of the way of another vassel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit avoid crossing ahead of the other 23. Every steam vassal which is directed by there rake to keep out of the way of another vassel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo Newfoundland Development Company Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Company Ltd; Owners of the Bogota v Owners of the Alconda
...at Sea, (8th ed.) p. 297; Little v. BurnsSC, (1881) 9 R. 118. 4 Marsden, Collisions at Sea, (8th ed.) pp. 380, 425, 476; The Hazelmere,ELR [1911] P. 69. 5 Owners of the s.s. Mendip Range v. Radcliffe, [1921] 1 A. C. 556. Cf. Marsden, Collisions at Sea, (8th ed.) Appx. II., p. 6 The Harberto......
-
The Glenclova v. Sowards,
...whose master has received a signal which justifies her (1) [1914] P. 40. (2) [1910] 79 L.J. Prob. 23n. (3) [1910] 79 L.J. Prob. 21n. (4) [1911] P. 69. Ex. C.R. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA 221 continuing her course and speed is entitled to hold on, until 1925 she realizes there was dan......