The Knight Errant and Hopper Barge WH (No 1)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1910 |
| Date | 09 March 1910 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Lord Halsbury, Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ., and Nantical Assessors
The Knight Errant and Hopper Barge W. H. No. 1
Collision Tug and tow Negligence of tug
MARITIME LAW cases. 407 CT OF APP.] THE KNIGHT ERRANT AND HOPPER BARGE W. H. NO. 1. [CT. OF APP. Supreme Court of Audicature. COURT OF APPEAL. Wednesday, March 9,1910. (Before Lord HALBRURY, FLETCHER MOULTON and FARWELI., L.JJ., and Nautical Assessors.) THE KNIGHT EARANT AND HOPPER BARGE W. H. No. 1. (a) Collision - Tug and tow - Negligence of tug - Duty of tug to act course - Duty of low to foullow tug. A hopper barge, which had a rudder but no motive power, when in tow of a lug came into collision with a lightship. The owners of the lightship brought an action against the owners of the tug and the owners of the tow for the damage they had sustained, alleging negligence in both tug and tow. In that action, which teas tried in the Admiralty Court, both tug and tow were held to blame for the collision; the tug for not keeping more to that side of the channel which lay on her starboard tide, the tow for not porting her helm sooner than she did to counteract the negli gent course set by the tug. Held, varying the order of the Admiralty Court, that those on the hopper barge were not guilty of negligence in failing to port sooner than they did, as they were entitled to assume that those on the tug who were responsible for the navigation would set such a course as would take the hopper barge safely past the lightship. APPEAL by the owners of the hopper barge IF. U. No. 1, defendants in the court below, from a decision of Sir J. Bigham, President, by which be held them jointly liable vith the owners of the tog Knight Errant, also defendants below, for damage done to the lightship Comet, earned by a collision between the hopper barge W. S. No. 1 while in tow of the tag Knight Errant. The respondent*, plaintiffs in the court below, were the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the owners of the lightship Comet. The defendants, tbe owners of tbe steam lug Knight Errant, did not appeal. The case made by (be plaintiffs was that shortly before 8.15 p.m. on the 15tb Oct. 1909 tbe Comet, a lightship of 122 tons register, was lying moored on her station in Crosby Channel, river Mersey, with her bead to tbe northward and westward. The wind was west, fresh to a strong breeze, tbe weather was line and clear, and tbe tide flood about three knots. Tbe dmel'e powerful white light was flashing every ten seconds, and a proper watch was being kept on board her. In these circumstances those on board the Comet observed the masthead towing and red lights of tbe tug Knight Errant about a quarter of a mile away, a little on the starboard bow, and shortly after-wards the red light of her tow, the hopper barge W. S. No. 1. Tbe tog and ber tow were coming up channel, bat were so carelessly navigated that, although tbe Knight Errant passed to tbe port side ot the lightship, the hopper barge struck the lightship on the starboard bow such a severe blow that she soon afterwards sank. (a) Reported by L. F. O. DARBY, Esq.. Barrister-at-Law. Those on the Comet charged those on the W. H. No. 1 with neglecting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Koursk
...P. 212 The DevonshireDID=ASPM 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 210 107 L. T. Rep. 179 (1912) A. C. 634, 657 The Knight ErrantDID=ASPMELR 11 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 407 102 L. T. Rep. 643 (1910) P. 199 The FranklandDID=ASPMELR 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas., 196 84 L. T. Rep. 395 (1901) P. 161 King v. HoareENR 13 M. ......