The Mathura
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1939 |
| Date | 12 July 1939 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Langton, J., assisted by Elder Brethren of Trinity House
The Mathura
HaarfagreUNK 64 Ll. L. R. p. 69
Order In Council Consolidating Orders In Council Making Regulations For Preventing Collisions At Sea And Rules As To Signals Of Distress, SI 1910/1113.
Collision off Dungeness Dense fog One vessel on voyage from Schiedam to Vancouver sounding lying stopped signals
328 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE MATHUra. [ADM. June 15 and 16, and July 10, 11, and 12, 1639. (Before LANGTON, J., assisted by Elder Brethren of Trinity House.) The Mathura. (a) Collision off Dungeness - Dense fog - One vessel on voyage from Schiedam to Vancouver sounding " lying slopped " signals -Other vessel on voyage from Calcutta to London proceeding up English Channel blowing fog signals-Engines of " lying stopped " vessel put slow ahead just prior to collision-Alteration of course by other vessel- Up-going vessel held two-thirds to blame; other vessel, one-third-Costs in same proportion-Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea., arts. 15, 16, 28, 27 and 20. This was an action brought by the owners of the Norwegian motor vessel B. against the owners of the British steamship M. in respect of a collision between the B. and the M. which occurred in the English Channel about three miles to the southward and westward of Dungeness in thick fog at about 11.45 a.m. on the 5th March, 1938. The case for the plaintiffs was that shortly before 11.45 a.m. on the day in question, the B., a steel twin-screw motor vessel of 4883 tons gross, was in the English Channel about three miles S.W. true from Dungeness whilst on a voyage from Schiedam to Vancouver, B.C., in ballast. The B., which had previously been in collision in about the same position with the steamship S. W., was lying, with her engines stopped, stationary in the water, and was sounding signals of two long blasts for fog at regulation intervals. In these circumstances those on board the B. heard a signal of one long blast, apparently right ahead, and a long way off. The B. sounded two long blasts in reply, and thereafter signals of one long blast from the other vessel and of two long blasts on the B. mere exchanged. As, after some time, the vessel ahead appeared from her signals to be approaching rapidly, the B. put her engines full speed astern and sounded three short blasts on her whistle. As the B. began to gather ster??way, a signal of one long blast was heard from another vessel, which appeared to be right astern of the B., and (a)Reported by J. A. PETRrie?? Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 329 ADM.] THE MAthurA. [ADM. accordingly the B. stopped her engines and then put them slaw ahead in order to take off her sternway. Thereafter the engines of the B. were again stopped, it being observed that the B.'s heading had altered meanwhile to about N.W. magnetic. On becoming stopped in the water, the B. sounded two long blasts on several occasions, receiving in reply signals of one long blast from the approaching vessel which, how ever, now appeared to be bearing about abeam on the B.'s port side. After an interval, as the approaching vessel appeared to be drawing aft, the B. put her engines slow ahead, and sounded one long blast on her whistle. As the B. gathered headway, a vessel, which afterwards proved to be the M.. came into view about 100 yards distant, and bearing a little forward of the B.'s beam. As the M. was seen to be approaching at speed and to be heading for the bridge of the B., the B. put her engines full speed ahead, and her wheel was ordered astar-board, but before the latter order was carried out, the B.'s wheel was ordered and put hard apart in an endeavour to srcing her stern clear of the M. The M. continued on at speed, however, and with her stem struck the B. just abaft the engine room, doing damage to the B. In their defence, the defendants denied negligence, and their case was that the M., a steel screw steam ship of 8890 tons gross, whilst on a voyage from Calcutta to London, was, on the 5th March, 1938, in the English Channel to the southward and westward of Dungeness, pro ceeding upon a course of N. 56 degrees E. true and at a speed of about five knots through the water, and sounding long blasts for fog in accordance with the regulations, when, shortly before 11.83 a.m. those on board her heard two long blasts from a vessel (which afterwards proved to be the B.)i apparently bearing on the M.'s starboard bow. The M. immediately stopped her engines and sounded a signal of one long blast in reply; the vessels thereafter continued to exchange these signals. As the B. broadened on the M.'s starboard bow, the M. altered her course 15 degrees to port, and thereafter worked her engines at " slow ahead," "dead slow," and "stop," as required tomaintain steerage way. Shortly afterwards, in order to avoid getting too close to a tug and tow on her port side, the M. was brought back on to her original course of N. 56 degrees E. true, maintaining steerageway and sounding signals of one long blast at regulation intervals. The B. was heard to be sounding signals of two long blasts until a signal of one long blast was heard from her, when the M.'s engines were im mediately put full speed astern, and three short blasts were sounded on the M.'s whistle. It was then that the B. loomed up in the fog, distant about 400ft., and bearing about two to three points on the M.'s starboard bow. Three short blasts were again sounded on the M.'s whistle, but the B., coming on and twinging to starboard, struck the stem of the M. with her port side aft, causing damage to the M. The B. was heard to sound three short blasts, but those on board the M. were unable to say what was the precise moment at which they heard them. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that those in charge of the defendants'" vessel had failed to comply with articles 16, 27 and 29 of the Collision Regulations, whilst the defendants, who blamed the B. for the collision, alleged that those on board her had failed to comply with arts. 15,16, 23, 27, and 29. The place of collision having been found by the learned judge to be substan tially as pleaded by the plaintiffs, namely, three miles, as near as might be, to the S.W. of Dungeness, Held, (1) That the M. was to blame for excessive speed and alteration of course. (2) That the B. was to blame for going slowly ahead just before the collision, after having intimated to the M. that she was lying stopped in the water. (3) Thai the blame...
To continue reading
Request your trial