The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1906 |
| Date | 18 December 1906 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Admiralty - Collision - Crossing Rule - Crossing Ahead - Narrow Channel - Good Seamanship -
By art. 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897, “in narrow channels every steam vessel shall, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel,” and, as a matter of good seamanship, the waterway between two opposite points, as for example the ends of breakwaters, together with so much of the adjacent water as is necessary for the navigation of the passage, should be treated as a narrow channel within the meaning of this article.
ACTION OF DAMAGE BY COLLISION.
The plaintiffs were the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, owners of the Orinoco.
The defendants were the North German Lloyd Steamship Company, owners of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse.
The case is reported on the question of the application of art. 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1897F1, to a narrow passage defined by two points, such as the ends of breakwaters.
The facts are fully set out in the judgment, but, in the absence of a chart, the following outline may assist in appreciating the situation. The collision occurred at night just outside the western entrance to the harbour of Cherbourg. The weather at the time was overcast with a south-westerly breeze, and the tide the last of the ebb, nearly slack water. The western entrance is about half a mile in width, and lies between the ends of two breakwaters approximately east and west, that to the west, the Fort Chavagnac, being unlighted. In respect of the navigation, the practice, according to the evidence of the plaintiffs, would seem to be for a steamship approaching from the north to make for the light on the eastern end of the opposite breakwater, the Fort de l'Ouest, keeping it on the port bow, and, by porting, edge off to starboard as she gets near enough for those in charge to distinguish the unlighted end of the western breakwater, and then keep well to the starboard side whilst passing through the narrow passage formed by the ends of the two breakwaters. According to the same evidence a steam vessel coming out should, if necessary, by porting keep to her starboard side of the narrow passage, passing the incoming vessel port to port, and the main charges made by the plaintiffs in their statement of claim against the defendants were that the defendant vessel when coming out committed a breach of the crossing rule (art. 19) by failing, when she had the plaintiff vessel on her starboard side, to keep out of the way, a breach of art. 22 by crossing ahead, and a breach of art. 25 by failing to keep to that side of the west passage which lay on her starboard side. On the other hand, the main charges made against the plaintiffs by the defendants in their defence and counterclaim were that, in breach of art. 21, the plaintiff vessel ported instead of keeping her course, and, in breach of art. 27, disregarded the dangers of navigation and collision, by failing to wait until the defendant vessel was clear of the harbour. By their reply and defence to counter-claim the plaintiffs, in the alternative, set up the defence of compulsory pilotage, but abandoned it at the trial, and, in the result, the arguments of counsel were chiefly directed to the question of good seamanship.
Aspinall, K.C., and C. Robertson Dunlop, for the plaintiffs, the owners of the Orinoco. No evidence has been given of any practice for the incoming vessel to wait outside. On the contrary, the evidence of the French pilot for the harbour of Cherbourg on board the Orinoco has not been disproved. That evidence is to the effect that the practice is for both the vessel coming in and the vessel going out to keep to the right, that is to say, the crossing rule (art. 19) is seemingly, in the circumstances, inapplicable; and, even if it did apply, as crossing ahead is to be avoided (art. 22), the outgoing vessel having, in the circumstances of this case, the incoming vessel on her starboard side, would port to go astern of the incoming vessel, and the incoming vessel would, if necessary, port so as to give more room, with the result that they would pass port side to port side as if governed by the narrow-channel rule (art. 25), which is, in effect, the guiding principle in such a locality. The same question arose in The KnaresbroF2, which was a case of collision in the Great Bitter Lake forming part of the Suez Canal. The plaintiffs' down-going vessel was leaving the canal proper and entering the lake, whilst the defendants' vessel, going north, was about to leave the lake and enter the canal, and though it was not necessary to decide the case on the question of seamanship, the Court, on the advice of the Elder Brethren, distinctly inclined to the view that the crossing rule (art. 19) did not apply, and that the proper course was for each vessel, in accordance with, or in analogy to, art. 25, to treat the spot as a narrow passage and keep to her starboard side, and for that purpose to port so as to pass port side to port side. That is what the Orinoco did do and the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse failed to do, and, therefore, the defendant vessel is to blame, the question involved being one of good seamanship, having regard to the locality.
Pickford, K.C., and Hugh C. S. Dumas (D. Stephens with them), for the defendants, the owners of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. The plaintiffs have thrown over the case they set up in their pleadings. By their preliminary act (art. xii.) they state that after the Orinoco had sounded one short blast, and had ported, the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse sounded one short blast, and the same allegation is repeated in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim, whereas it is now admitted that those in charge of the defendant vessel never blew one short blast, but twice sounded two short blasts, indicating that they intended to pass ahead of the Orinoco, a manoeuvre which there was ample room to carry out if the Orinoco had not by hard-a-porting defeated their object.
Article 25 applies to a narrow channel, and not to a narrow place defined only by two points. In such a locality good seamanship suggests that the incoming vessel should wait until the outgoing vessel has passed clear, and therefore neither art. 25 nor the remarks in The KnaresbroF3 have any application.
Considering the size, length and speed of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, to pass port side to port side would have been impracticable, as it would have compelled her in a very short space of time and in very narrow waters to twice cross the bows of the Orinoco. From the closing in of the masthead lights of the Orinoco, observed by those in charge of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, it is evident that she must have starboarded at a time which was material to the present inquiry, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nautical Challenge Ltd (Claimant 131 Defendant 017 "Alexandra 1 Interests") v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd (Defendant 131 Claimant 017 "Ever Smart Interests")
...the attention of Admiralty judges since at least 1866. I was referred to The Leverington (1886) 11 PD 117, The Kaiser Wilhelm Der Grosse [1907] P.36 and 259, The Treherbert [1933] 47 Ll.L. Rep. 274, The Empire Brent (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 306, The Canberra Star [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep.24, The G......
-
Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd (THE 'ALEXANDRA 1' and 'EVER SMART')
...The [1979] 1 Ll Rep 247. James Buchanan & Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd [1978] AC 141. Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, The [1907] P 36; [1907] P 259 (CA). Kulemesin v HKSAR [2013] 16 HKCFA 195. Leverington, The (1886) 11 PD 117. Lorentzen v Alcoa Rambler [1949] AC 236 (PC). Maloj......
-
Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd
...her final approach”; see paragraph 135. The Supreme Court identified the navigation of the vessel Orinoco in The Kaiser Wilhem der Grosse [1907] P.36 and 259, the navigation of the vessel City of Lyons in The Canberra Star [1962] 1 Lloyd's Reports 24 and the navigation of the vessel Yao Hai......
-
The Peter Benoit
...pp. 14 The WinstanleyDID=ASPMELR 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 154 75 L. T. Rep. 133 (1896) P. 297 The Kaiser Wilhelm der GrosseDID=ASPMELR 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361 97 L. T. Rep. 366 (1907) P. 36 Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 57) s. 1, sub-s. 1 Shipping Collision Both vessels of b......