The Napier Star
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1939 |
| Date | 15 June 1939 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Langton, J.
The Napier Star
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v. English 157 L. T. Rep. 406 (1938) A. C. 57
Hedley v. Pinkney and Sons Steamship Company LimitedDID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 483 70 L. T. Rep. 630 (1894) A. C. 222
The CedricDID=ASPM 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 285 125 L. T. Rep. 120 (1920) P. D. 193
Groves v. Lord WimborneELR 79 L. T. Rep. 284 (1898) 2 Q. B. 402
Lennard's Carrying Company Limited v. Asiatic Petroleum Company LimitedDID=ASPM 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 81 113 L. T. Rep. 195 (1915) A. C. 705
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 419, sub-sect. (1)
Maritime Convention Act, 1911, sect. 1 and sect. 3, sub-sect. (1)
Collision — Claims for loss of life and personal injuries of members of crew — Whether breach of Collision Regulations by navigating officer a breach of statutory duty by owner so as to defeat defence of common employment
302 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. H. OF L.] ROBERTSON v. PETROS M. NOMIKOS LIMITITED. [ADM. Supreme Court of Judicatare. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. April 24, May 15 and 10, and June 15, 1939. (Before LANGTON, J.) The Napier Star. (a) Collision-Claims for loss of life and personal injuries of members of crew-Whether breach of Collision Regulations by navigating officer a breach of statutory duty by owner so as to defeat defence of common employment- Apportionment of damages-Costs-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 419, sub-sect. (1) Maritime Convention Act, 1911, sect. 1 and sect. 3, sub-sect. (1). This was a motion in objection to the report of the Admiralty Registrar in a reference, arising out of a collision action between the owners of the British steamship N. S. and the owners of the. British steamship L., in which Bucknill, J. had held both vessels to be equally to blame. Claims which had been brought against the owners of the N. S. by the personal representatives of six members of the crew of the L. who had lost their lives in the collision, by one seaman of the L. for personal injuries, and by one passenger on board the L. who had also been injured, had been settled by the owners of the N. S., who at the reference claimed to be entitled to recover from the owners of the L. one-half of the amount paid in respect of those claims and one-half of the costs incurred by them in defending the various actions brought against them in respect of these claims. The learned registrar upheld, in his report, the contention put forward on behalf of the. L. that as, if the claims had been brought against the owners of the L., they would have failed because of the defence of common employment which was open to the owners of the L., the owners of the N. S. were debarred from recovering from the owners of the L. any contribution in respect of the claims for loss of life and personal injuries of members of the crew (a) Reported by J. A. PETEIK, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 303 ADM.] THE NAPIER STAR. [ADM. which they had paid or any proportion of the costs they had incurred. As to the claim for personal injuries of the passenger on board the L., the owners of the L. were protected by the terms of the ticket which they had issued to that passenger. Held, (1) that as regards the life and personal injury claims on behalf of the crew, the duty cast upon owners of ships by sect. 419, sub-s. (I), of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to obey the Collision Regulations is a general duty towards all the world and not a special duly to their employees; that that duty consists in the provision of proper equipment such as navigation lamps and fog signalling apparatus, and does not extend to the actual navigation of the vessel (unless the owner himself is carrying out the duties of a ship master); that the negligence which caused the damage was faulty navigation for which the master, under the Act, was primarily responsible-not a failure by the owners of the L. to make proper provision for the navigation of the vessel, but the misuse by one of their servants of the system in operation ; and that, accordingly, as there had been no breach of statutory duty on the part of the owners of the L. they would have been entitled to claim the benefit of the common law defence of common employment in any action brought against them by or on behalf of injured or deceased members of the crew. (2) That as regards the passenger's claim, the owners of the L. were protected by the terms of the ticket. (3) That the costs incurred by the owners of the N. S. were reasonably incurred in defending actions arising out of the joint negligence of the L. and N. S As those costs were part of the N. S.'s damage, they were apportionable under sect. 1 of the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911. In the result, the registrar's report was upheld, save in regard to costs. MOTION in objection to Registrar's report. On the 18th August, 1935, a collision occurred in the Irish Sea between the British steamship Laurentic (18,724 tons gross) belonging to the Cunard White Star Limited and the British steamship Napier Star (10,168 tons gross) belonging to the Blue Star Line Limited. In the ensuing collision action, Bucknill, J. held both vessels equally to blame Although the owners of the Napier Star had filed a claim for upwards of 37.000l., the only item in dispute at the reference before the Registrar, L. F. C. Darby, and the merchants (the other items having been agreed at 28,069l. 10s. 1d.), was a sum of 4352l. 6s. 11d., being the damages paid by the defendants, the owners of the Napier Star, in actions brought against them on behalf of six members of the crew of the Laurentic who lost their lives in the collision, one seaman of the Laurentic who sustained personal injuries, and a Dr. Papworth, who was a passenger on board the Laurentic, and was also injured, the taxed costs paid to the defendants' solicitors in those actions and the costs incurred by the owners of the Napier Star in defending the actions. It was claimed by the owners of the Napier Star that by virtue of sect, 3, sub-sect. (1), of the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, and sect. 419, sub-sect. (1), of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, they were entitled to recover half of the 4352l. 6s. 11d. from the owners of the Laurentic. The claim was disallowed in its entirety by the learned Registrar. The findings contained ir. his report appear sufficiently from the headnote and judgment. In the course of the hearing, the following cases were referred to : Groves v. Lord Wimborne (79 L. T, Rep. 284 ; (1898) 2 Q. B. 402) ; Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v. English (157 L. T. Rep. 400 (II. L.) ; (1938) A. C. 57) ; Medley v. Pinkney and Sons Steamship Company (7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 483; 70 L. T. 630; (1894) A. C. 222) : Lochgelly Iron and Coal Company v. McMullen ((1934) A. C. 1) ; Britannic Mcrthyr Coal Company v. David (101 L. T. Rep. 833 ; (1910) A. C. 74) ; Butler (or Black) and another v. Fife Coal Company (100 L. T. Rep. 161; (1912) A. C. 149); Watkins v. Naval Colliery Company (1897) Limited (107 L. T. Rep. 321 ; (1912) A. C. 693) ; The Circe (10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 149; 93 L. T. Rep. 640 ; (1906) P.I); The Cedric (15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 285 ; 125 L. T. Rep. 120 ; (1920) P. 193); Lennard's Carrying Company Limited v. Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited (13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 81 ; 113 L. T. Rep. 195 ; (1915) A. C. 705). A. T. Miller, K.C. and E. W. Brightman, for the plaintiffs, the owners of the Laurentic. Gordon Willmer, K.C., for the defendants, the owners of the Napier Star. Langton, J.-This is a motion in objection to Registrar's report. On the 18th August, 1935, a collision occurred in the Irish Sea between the steamship...
To continue reading
Request your trial